USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
I need top writing here. No grammatical mistakes or poor content will be accepted.
My attached references must be correctly cited and used
Instructions: 6 Page APA Post Graduate (Masters Level) essay (6 pages not including title or reference pages). Assignment instructions and required resources and materials attached.
Number of Pages: 6 Pages
Deadline: 2 days
Academic Level: Post-graduate
Paper Format: APA
Instructions
During the 2013 holiday season, Target underwent a major crisis. Initially, Target officials announced that 40 million of Target customers had their credit and debit card information stolen as a result of computer hackers. Consumers were later informed that the impact of the data breach affected an additional 70 million customers and the depth of the breach included customer’s personal information to include phone numbers and e-mail addresses. The result of this massive crisis caused Target’s sales to decline, corporate layoffs and the inevitable end to the 35 year career of Target’s CEO and President with the resignation of Gregg Steinhafel.
For this week’s assignment, evaluate Target’s communication strategy during the data breach using the factors as presented in the Situational Crisis Communication Theory.
Address the following:
· Discuss how you believe Target’s former CEO leader handled the crisis
Recommend a communications strategy for Target’s new CEO, Brian Cornell.
Support your evaluation with a minimum of four (4) scholarly resources. In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including older articles, may be included.
Length: 6 full pages, not including title and reference pages
Your synthesis should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards.
Required Supporting Articles and Scholarly Sources are attached on Zip Folder
A Message from CEO Gregg Steinhafel –
https://corporate.target.com/press/releases/2013/12/a-message-from-ceo-gregg-steinhafel-about-targets
Week 5 Assignment Resources/Communication as a Strategic Tool in Change Processes
International Journal of
Business Communication
2014, Vol. 51(4) 359 –385
© The Authors 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2329488414525442
jbc.sagepub.com
Article
Communication as a Strategic
Tool in Change Processes
Marit Christensen1
Abstract
The aim of the study was to develop, test, and partly validate a set of organizational
communication factors for use in an organizational-change setting. Based on literature
reviews and pilot interviews, a survey study was conducted using three samples.
First, the testing involved construct validation through exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses. Second, the sample was divided into three groups: employees who
experienced change, those who had recently had finished a change process, and those
who had not experienced any change processes. The communication factors were
then examined as predictors of employee assessment of communication in these
three groups, respectively. The results of the study indicated eight robust dimensions
included in five categories: social contact, central leadership, information, influence,
and barriers to improvement. The results of the factor analyses indicated satisfactory
reliability and construct validity of the communication factors, and the confirmatory
factor analysis revealed a satisfactory model fit.
Keywords
organizational communication, organizational change, measurement, validation
Organizations today are confronted daily with the need for change. A major challenge
for organizations is to develop both a culture or climate and leadership strategies that
allow them to cope with challenges such as downsizing, re-engineering, flattening
structures, global competition, and the introduction of new technology (Waddell,
Cummings, & Worley, 2011). One approach to a successful change process could be
through the establishment of good communication and information strategies within
1Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
Corresponding Author:
Marit Christensen, Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
Email: marit.christensen@svt.ntnu.no
525442 JBCXXX10.1177/2329488414525442Journal of Business CommunicationChristensen
research-article2014
360 International Journal of Business Communication 51(4)
the organization, while implementing change. Communication is well recognized as
instrumental to organizational survival and growth (Bordia, Hobman, Jones, Gallois,
& Callan, 2004; Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). This fact has
served as a driving force in the development of efficient instruments for the measure-
ment and analysis of communication in organizations (Downs, DeWine, & Greenbaum,
1994). The basic idea is that a communication audit creates a foundation for diagnos-
ing the quality of the communication practice. Auditing communication involves the
assessment of current communication practices to determine what steps are required
for improvement. Based on this line of thought, several instruments for measuring
organizational communication have been developed (see Downs et al., 1994, for a
review). The existing measures are diverse and differ in their aims regarding commu-
nication focus. Additionally, few of them are related specifically to change. Most of
the instruments have only been used once. The aim of this study was therefore to
develop, test, and partly validate a measure of organizational communication related
to change.
The first step was a study of the literature on the role of organizational communica-
tion during change processes. The following section provides a review of the literature
for the pilot interview study.
Resistance to change is a phenomenon that slows the change process by hindering
its implementation and increasing costs. Some of the drivers of responses to change
could be economic fear, uncertainty, inconvenience, threats to interpersonal relation-
ships, the impact on internal processes and systems, and the impact on social func-
tions. Resistance is mostly considered negative; however, that does not tell the whole
story. Change is not necessarily beneficial to the organization, and resistance can
reveal to managers important aspects of the situation that have not been properly con-
sidered (Pardo del Val & Martinez Fuentes, 2003). Change can generate deep resis-
tance in employees and organizations, which makes it difficult and sometimes
impossible to implement change processes (Garvin, 2000). Employees mostly resist
change when they are insecure about its consequences. The lack of information and
communication with managers could give life to rumors and gossip and lead to anxiety
associated with the change. Effective communication about the changes and conse-
quences could reduce this anxiety and increase the feeling of mastery (Argyris &
Schön, 1996). However, communication is also a difficult and frustrating aspect of
managing change in an organization. There is, therefore, a strong need to have well-
considered communication and information strategies during the planned change pro-
cess. Another effective strategy to avoid pitfalls and hindrances is to involve employees
in planning and implementing the change process with regard to information and
ideas. It could increase the likelihood that the employees’ interests and worries are
accounted for and thereby increase the motivation to implement the change process
(Waddell et al., 2011).
The concept of organizational communication is, according to Goldhaber (1999),
marked by diversity. The many definitions of organizational communication reflect a
wide range of approaches and perspectives. In analyzing the content of these defini-
tions, Goldhaber identified three common features: Organizational communication (a)
Christensen 361
takes place within complex open systems (it is influenced by the environment and
influences it as well); (b) entails all features of a message (i.e., flow, purpose, direc-
tion, and media); and (c) involves people, including their attitudes, feelings, relation-
ships, and skills. Drawing on these features, Goldhaber proposes the following
definition: Organizational communication is “the flow of messages within a network
of interdependent relationships” (Goldhaber, 1999, p. 36).
Research suggests that the concept of organizational communication is multidi-
mensional. For example, on one hand, Tukiainen (2001) found that employees per-
ceive four dimensions of meaning in organizational communication: (1) personnel’s
use of the communication system; (2) the management’s conduct and methods of com-
munication, including the perception that separate communication channels exist for
workers and leadership, how the leadership’s decisions and communicative behavior
are perceived, and the extent to which communication is considered regular, orga-
nized, and equal; (3) face-to-face communication; and (4) the efficiency of the com-
munication process. On the other hand, Johnson (1992) reviewed four major approaches
to organizational communication structure and identified five dimensions: relation-
ships, entities (e.g., employees, work units), contexts, configuration (e.g., patterns of
organizational behavior), and temporal stability. These examples are given merely to
illustrate that the structure of organizational communication has been described in dif-
ferent dimensions. The variety is not surprising, considering the wide scope of the
field. Organizational communication is considered a specific discipline, although it
cuts across a wide range of research fields.
The broad scope of the discipline of organizational communication is also reflected
in the variety of different organizational communication measurements that have been
developed. The most widely used measures are in two categories: process instruments
(e.g., measuring issues of conflict management, team building, and communication
competence) and comprehensive instruments (involving an overall approach to com-
munication). Validated instruments that have been applied frequently include the
Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ; Downs & Hazen, 1977), which
emphasizes the relationship between communication and job satisfaction; the
Communication Audit Survey (also known as the International Communication
Association [ICA] audit survey), identified as one of the most comprehensive attempts
to measure all aspects of organizational communication (Goldhaber & Krivonos,
1977); the Organizational Communication Development Audit Questionnaire (OCD2;
Wiio, 1975), which determines the efficiency of the communication system for achiev-
ing an organization’s goals; and the Organization Communication Scale (OSC;
Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974), which compares communication practices across organi-
zations. This is by no means a complete list but is meant to give a sense of the scope
of the field.
The complexity of organizational communication demands a broad perspective.
According to Downs et al. (1994), the extensive span of the research area and the use
of imprecise parameters created a challenge in establishing the field’s current status. A
similar point had already been made in 1974 by Roberts and O’Reilly, who called
attention to the lack of systematic development of instrumentation to measure
362 International Journal of Business Communication 51(4)
organizational communication. According to Downs et al., it is unfortunate that so few
of the organizational communication measures have been used sufficiently to generate
the mandatory levels of reliability and validity.
Based on the argument of Downs et al. (1994), two tasks would seem to be entailed
in the development of an organizational-communication measure. First, although sev-
eral instruments have been developed and validated, the multifaceted nature of the
field renders it difficult to define the direction to be taken in instrument development.
In other words, how does one identify the common denominator to be used to compare
a new instrument with previous measurements? It is argued here that a key factor in
measurement development is the identification of a background or starting point that
can serve as a common reference point, allowing comparison with other approaches.
Specifying a background that can be used in any approach to organizational commu-
nication increases the possibility of comparing results and identifying the status of the
field. The second task concerns the problem of designing an instrument that will be
used only once, with no further attempt to certify its validity. Thus, a key issue becomes
the development of an instrument that is easy to use, requiring frequent validation. The
theoretical background for the study is elaborated next.
Content of the Communication Instrument
A study of the literature and a pilot interview study were important to defining the five
categories of the communication instrument that were extracted and tested in this
paper. As a first step in the development and validation of an instrument of organiza-
tional communication, item generation is essential. In this paper, both a deductive
approach and an inductive approach were used. The basis for the deductive approach,
which involves providing a theoretical foundation for organizational communication
and the chosen categories, is provided below. In addition, the inclusion of an inductive
approach, in which respondents were invited to share their experiences of organiza-
tional communication in change processes, was thought to be of interest. The catego-
ries extracted from the pilot studies and literature review included social contact,
central leadership, information, influence, and barriers to improvement. Within some
of the categories, several themes demonstrated that each category had several facets.
An elaboration of the categories’ theoretical and empirical foundation is provided
below.
Social contact was the first category developed from the pilot interviews. Within
this category, respondents identified several elements as crucial to well-functioning
communication systems in change processes. In this category, respondents highlighted
certain themes: contact between coworkers and leadership, contact among coworkers,
and finally the fact that disruptive relations between colleagues and leaders could dev-
astate an organization. The respondents also pointed out the importance of distinguish-
ing between levels, that is, distinguishing between contact with central leadership and
contact with the closest leader in times of reorganization and change. The communica-
tion and information processes could be experienced quite differently based on who
initiates the rationale and strategy behind a planned change process. Central leadership
was therefore defined as a specific category, the second category. According to
Christensen 363
Goldhaber (1999), organizational communication pertains to the attitudes, feelings,
relationships, and skills of people. In line with Goldhaber’s suggestion, others have
also emphasized the social component of organizational communication. For example,
Tukiainen (2001) reported that the management’s conduct and face-to-face communi-
cation shaped employee perception of organizational communication. Johnson (1992)
also underlined the social component of organizational communication, suggesting
that social relationships represent one of the key dimensions of organizational com-
munication structure. Finally, Towers-Perrin (2006) concluded that one of the key
hindrances to employee engagement is the difficulty of building appropriate connec-
tions between the leadership and the workforce.
The third extracted category involved information, especially information content,
quality, timing, and structure. Previous research (Johnson, 1992; Tukiainen, 2001)
emphasized the importance of employee use of the communication system and the
system’s efficiency. Rafferty and Jimmieson (2010) found that the information cli-
mate regarding change had a positive relationship with the quality of work life and a
negative association with role ambiguity, work overload, and distress. They also found
that the participation climate during change had a positive relationship with quality of
work life. This is in line with the results of Van Vuuren, de Jong, and Seydel (2007),
who reported that feedback from managers to employees is a critical factor in shaping
communication climate and employee commitment. Communication and information
in the workplace during change and reorganization are essential to employee job sat-
isfaction (De Nobile & McCormick, 2008).
The fourth category dealt with influence. Respondents emphasized the importance
of both their perceived influence and participation in decision making as well as the
important role of the labor unions, especially in the reorganization and change pro-
cesses. Wilson and Peel (1991) defined participation as allowing individuals to be
involved to a high degree in the planning and control of their own work and as having
enough knowledge and power to influence processes and results in order to reach
desirable goals. A meta-analysis including 43 studies revealed that profit-sharing,
worker ownership, and worker participation in decision making were all positively
correlated with increased productivity (Doucouliagos, 1995). Participation during
change seems to empower the employees and might function as a predictor of accep-
tance of change (Gagné, Koestner, & Zuckerman, 2000; Wanberg & Banas, 2000).
The fifth category was concerned with barriers to the improvement of communica-
tion during organizational change and hindrances to good communication practices.
Earlier studies demonstrated that relationships, rules, policies, and resources, or lack
of them, affect communication team functioning. Koontz (2001) summarized the bar-
riers to communication with the notion that communication problems are often symp-
toms of problems that are more deeply rooted: for example, poor planning and lack of
common goals for the organization, communication overload, badly expressed mes-
sages, lack of understanding, and hostility between the participants and bureaucracy.
As mentioned, resistance to change might be a major barrier to successful reorganiza-
tion because it triggers a perceived lack of control, insecurity, and anxiety, among
other things (Bruckman, 2008; Erwin & Garman, 2009; Ford & Ford, 2009). Lack of
364 International Journal of Business Communication 51(4)
information and good communication strategies might increase these experiences
(Waddell, Cummings, & Worley, 2007).
Theoretical Presupposition
The contemporary focus of the theoretical field of organizational communication is
closely related to the issues of organizational change (see Salem, 1999, for a review).
Communication is regarded as key to the successful implementation of change pro-
grams, because it is a tool for announcing, explaining, or preparing people for change,
as well as for preparing for positive and negative effects of the impending change
(Spike & Lesser, 1995). According to Barrett (2002), effective communication is the
glue that holds the organization together. During organizational change, the effective-
ness of this glue becomes critical. Efficient communication is essential because it links
all organizational processes. As pointed out by Galpin (1996), any organizational
change strategy begins by establishing the need for change. A critical decision is then
related to how to communicate this need to members of the organization. The rationale
for change must be communicated clearly, as must the consequences of not changing,
not to mention how the organization will appear after the changes (Galpin, 1996).
The rate of change in organizations has been increasing during the past 20 years
(see, e.g., Burnes, 2004; Jones, Dunphy, Fishman, Larne, & Canter, 2006), and there
has been considerable debate about whether change actually brings the expected ben-
efits to the organizations or those who work in them (Jones et al., 2006). There are two
main approaches to change: the planned and the emergent. The main criticism of
planned change is that it attempts to make order and a linear sequence out of some-
thing that is really unpredictable, messy, and untidy (Buchanan & Storey, 1997).
Weick (2000) argues that emergent change consists of ongoing accommodation, adap-
tion, and alteration that produce fundamental change without a priori intentions to do
so. Both of these approaches indicate that change in any fashion is unpredictable and
unstable and in many cases fails to achieve its objectives.
One of the major aims of communication during change is to reduce the experience
of job insecurity among employees (Allen, Jimmieson, Bordia, & Irmer, 2007). Good
and effective communication seems to reduce psychological insecurity about change
and, additionally, increases acceptance, openness, and commitment to change (Bordia et
al., 2004; Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). The failure to provide
sufficient information or provide inferior information can have negative consequences,
such as perceived cynicism about change (Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000). Rafferty
and Jimmieson (2010) found that the climate of information regarding change has a
positive relationship with the quality of work life and a negative association with role
ambiguity, work overload, and distress. They also found that the climate of participation
related to change has a positive relationship with the quality of work life.
Processes of organizational change are thus intimately related to communication
processes. Although it is well recognized in the literature, Galpin (1996) noted that
organizations have devoted most attention to technical, financial, and operational
aspects of change. This is echoed by Barrett (2002), who argued that some companies
Christensen 365
still do not see that organizational changes, and the management of change, are hin-
dered without effective communication. Strategic communication is a key aspect in
Galpin’s (1996) description of the change process, which begins by preparing strate-
gies for communication. Furthermore, communication by means of feedback and
employee participation drives the change process forward. Based on the key role of
communication in organizational change, we suggest that organizational change may
serve as an arena for the development and assessment of organizational communica-
tion instruments.
Method
Aim and Design
The main objective of the work was to develop and test an instrument of organiza-
tional communication and especially examine its performance during phases of orga-
nizational change. The design, therefore, included the development and testing of the
instrument itself, followed by a test of the instrument’s performance in groups defined
in accordance with three phases of organizational change. It was of specific interest to
investigate the performance of the instrument in the phase during which employees
experienced organizational change.
According to Hinkin (1998), the factor-development process includes (1) item gen-
eration, (2) questionnaire administration, (3) initial item reduction, (4) confirmatory
factor analysis, (5) convergent/discriminant validity, and (6) replication. The results as
reported in the present study followed Steps 1 through 4 in this suggested process. As
convergent/discriminant validation (Step 5) was not available as an option, a predic-
tive validity test was conducted. The predictive validity of the communication factors
was examined by testing how the factors related to communication during organiza-
tional change. This was done by examining how the factors predicted the employees’
assessments of communication in three different phases of organizational change. The
employees were divided into three groups: employees experiencing no change or reor-
ganization, employees who were in a change process, and employees in organizations
that had recently completed their reorganization or a change process. Replication
(Step 6) was not performed in the current study.
As described above, the questionnaire was developed and based on a review of the
literature and a pilot interview study. The questionnaire was administered in three
separate samples, involving different organizations, occupations, and work positions,
in order to examine the robustness of the dimension structure, which consisted of 76
items. In Step 1, the 76 items were organized into five categories based on their mean-
ing content: (1) social contact (36 items), (2) central leadership (5 items), (3) informa-
tion (14 items), (4) influence (10 items), (5) barriers to improvement (11 items).
The Aims of this Paper
The overall objective of the present work was to develop, test, and partly validate a
specific set of organizational communication factors as well as to examine how the
366 International Journal of Business Communication 51(4)
factors relate to organizational change. The rationale lies in the presumed value and
centrality of organizational communication, that is, communication as a strategic part
of organizational-change management.
The content of the communication factors was designed based on both a review of
the literature and a pilot interview study. The review of the literature helped to clarify
the construct of organizational communication and guided the selection of items. A
sample of six respondents from a variety of occupations and positions were asked to
describe their experiences of organizational communication, especially related to
change processes. Their responses were classified into five categories based on key
words or themes: social contact, central leadership, information, influence, and barri-
ers to improvement.
After the items had been generated, the next step was to administer a questionnaire
to three different samples, with the objective of examining how well those items con-
firmed expectations about the psychometric properties of the measure of organiza-
tional communication. The third step of the process was to ascertain the reliability and
validity of the instrument, and it involved initial item reduction through principal com-
ponent analyses in all three samples. Reliability represents the instrument’s precision
and is a necessary condition for validity. The internal consistency of each new dimen-
sion was measured by Cronbach’s alpha.
In the fourth step, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to test the adher-
ence of the results of the prior principal component analyses to the data. A weakness
of principal component analysis is its inability to test the goodness of fit of the result-
ing factor structure. A confirmatory factor analysis allows the assessment of the factor
structure by statistically testing the significance of the overall model and of item load-
ings on factors. Two confirmatory factor analyses were conducted in this study. They
were both performed on the largest sample. The first analysis was performed to test the
model fit of the eight-dimensional measurement model previously found in the PCA
analyses. The second analysis was performed to test whether the eight-factor commu-
nication instrument was a homogeneous measure of organizational communication
with different facets. As a result, a confirmatory factor analysis with a second-order
common latent dimension of organizational communication also was conducted.
Finally, predictive validity was tested in the last step to examine how the eight com-
munication dimensions predicted the “employees’ assessments of communication,” an
item measuring employee evaluation of organizational communication.
These analyses were conducted in three different groups in the second largest sam-
ple—no reorganization, current reorganization, and finished reorganization—to inves-
tigate whether the instrument, with the included eight dimensions, was able to
differentiate the performance of the instrument.
Data Collections and Their Design
The pilot study included six interviews with three managers and three employees, who
were chosen for participation because of their recent experience with change processes
in their organizations. Of these respondents, one leader and one employee were chosen
Christensen 367
from the private, municipal, and public sectors. In the pilot interview sample, half of
the interviewees were women. Managers and employees were located in Trøndelag, in
the region of mid-Norway. The respondents were contacted by telephone, and agree-
ments were reached about their participation and interviews. Each interview lasted 30
minutes, and all were audio-recorded with the permission of the interviewee and there-
after transcribed and analyzed. The pilot interview work, together with the literature
review, formed a basis for the development of the 76 items used in the questionnaire.
Sample 1 was based on a cross-sectional survey design and consisted of employees
working in the social, labor, and health sectors in Norway (n = 470). Five different
types of services were contacted for participation. A total of 24 municipalities were
carefully chosen on the basis of size and on whether they had a cornerstone industry1
that was downsizing or that had closed down. The design included a control sample.
Among the studied municipalities, 12 had a cornerstone industry that had recently
closed down or was downsizing. For the purpose of comparison, another 12 munici-
palities were chosen based not on having a downsizing cornerstone industry but on
their resemblance to the former 12 municipalities in size and location. These are
referred to here as “control municipalities.”2 Each control municipality was compared
with the 12 municipalities with a downsizing cornerstone industry, using the criteria
for comparability of the Norwegian Central Bureau of Statistics3: geographical loca-
tion, settlement pattern, economy of the municipality, average level of education,
income after tax per inhabitant, population, age-structure, and employment statistics
(Langørgen, Galloway, & Aaberge, 2006).
The design also divided the municipalities according to size; half of each subsam-
ple was selected from small municipalities (0-4,999 inhabitants), and the remaining
half was selected from medium-sized municipalities (5,000-19,999 inhabitants). The
division was also based on the grouping by the Central Bureau of Statistics of munici-
palities according to size. The mean age of the employees was 46 years (SD = 10.50);
73% were female and 27% were male. The leaders of each service received a letter of
invitation and were contacted again by telephone for participation. Sample 2 included
a selection (convenience sample) of employees working in the production industry and
in the transport sector (n = 192). Two local industrial production companies, as well as
a local office of a transportation labor union, were contacted and engaged. Participation
was voluntary, and the study had the consent of the respective leadership and employee
representatives or unions. A contact person in each organization or office distributed
the questionnaire to the employees. Participants came from leadership, production,
and transportation. The mean age of the respondents ranged between 40 and 50 years
of age; 89% were male and 11% were female. Sample 3 was a national quota sample
collected in 2004 of Norwegian employees working in different organizations, occu-
pations, and positions (n = 1,002). A quota sample is collected by a stratified sampling
technique in which the number of cases to be sampled is predetermined (Reber, 1995);
in this case, the sampling represented the overall national distribution of occupations.
The distribution of the respondents’ areas of work will be presented in four categories:
production and industry (17%; e.g., agriculture, fishing, and industry), service sector
(18%; e.g., retail and vehicle repair services, transport, bank/insurance/finance, and
368 International Journal of Business Communication 51(4)
the service industry), public administration (46%; e.g., research and education, health
and social services), and others (19%; see the Statistical Yearbook of Norway 2005
[Central Bureau of Statistics, 2005]). The mean age of the employees was 44 years
(SD = 11.49); 44% were male and 56% female. See Table 1 for a description of the
three samples.
Questionnaire and Measures
Organizational communication was measured using 76 items in the questionnaire. The
respondents were presented with statements to be checked on five-point scales ranging
from 1 = not correct to 5 = absolutely correct, and 1 = never to 5 = always, as well as
1 = not useful to 5 = invaluable.
The first category, social contact, consisted of three dimensions: (a) contact with
leadership (nine items, e.g., “the dialogue between my closest leader and me is good”),
(b) disruptive relations (five items, e.g., “rumors are flourishing between the employ-
ees”), and (c) coworker contact (four items, e.g., “the communication between my
coworkers and me is good”). This category of social contact measured the social rela-
tionship and dialogue between the leader and the employees and among coworkers.
The first dimension, contact with leadership, measured the relationship between the
employee and the closest leader and included aspects such as tolerance, openness,
respect, and trust. The second dimension, disruptive relations, measured detrimental
relationships among the employees and included such topics as rumors, conflicts, and
lack of communication. The third dimension measured the relationship and contact
among coworkers. The items included trust and solidarity.
The second category consisted of only one dimension, central leadership (three
items). It measured the relationship between employees and their central leadership,
related to topics such as openness, involvement, and regular contact (e.g., “The com-
munication with the leadership is marked by openness”).
The third category, information, also had one dimension: information (seven items,
e.g., “the information provided is relevant for me”). The items dealt with relevance,
clearness, and comprehensibility as well as the amount of information that is given and
the timing of the information.
The forth category, influence, had two dimensions: (a) perceived influence (three
items, e.g., “my opinions are heard”) and (b) perceived union assistance (two items,
e.g., “The unions bring my view/opinion further on”). The first dimension measured
the influence experienced by the employees in their workplace, involving items of
Table 1. Description of the Three Included Samples.
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Type of employees Public Private Diverse
Gender distribution 73% female 11% female 56% female
n 470 192 1,002
Christensen 369
being heard, time and place for discussion, and inclusion. The second dimension mea-
sured the employees’ experience of union assistance regarding information about
rights and bringing the employees opinions forwards.
The fifth category, barriers to improvement, had only one dimension (six items). It
measured different barriers to well-functioning communication in an organization
(e.g., “certain individuals may hamper communication”).
Employee assessment of communication was measured by a single item from the
General Nordic Questionnaire (QPS Nordic) for psychological and social factors at
work (Dallner et al., 2000). The item asks, “Is there sufficient communication in your
department?” The item was measured on a five-point scale where 1 = very seldom or
never, 2 = rather seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = rather often, and 5 = very often or always.
Data Analyses
The pilot study used qualitative interview techniques to gather data on organizational
communication during change. The interview questions concerned the respondents’
perceptions of communication in their organization and their appraisal of ideal organi-
zational communication. The interviews were read and an overall framework was
established. The analysis process started with data reduction by focusing on relevant
parts in the text to be included in a survey on organizational communication during
change. The next step was to sharpen, focus, and organize the data by developing units
within organizational communication for use in a survey instrument. Together with a
review of the literature, this material was used as a foundation for developing the orga-
nizational communication instrument.
Three principal component analyses (PCAs) and reliability analyses were per-
formed, in three separate samples. The samples were all part of the project “Work and
Health in a Changing World” (financed by the Research Council of Norway).
Preliminary Factor Analyses. Principal component analyses were used to examine the
dimensionality of the hypothesized communication components in all three samples.
The questionnaire was based on items describing the aforementioned five specific
areas within organizational communication. The assumption was that the variables
were indicators of different dimensions as presented above. The Kaiser criterion has
been referred to as the most appropriate for evaluating the results of a principal com-
ponent analysis (see Kim & Mueller, 1978). The dimensionality was examined using
both varimax (orthogonal) rotation and promax (oblique) rotation, both with the Kai-
ser’s extraction criterion (i.e., eigenvalue ≥1).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Two confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were per-
formed to investigate the model fit of the data. The first model tested the model fit of
the eight-dimensional model previously found in the principal component analyses,
and the second model further tested whether the eight-factor communication instru-
ment was a homogeneous measure of organizational communication with different
facets. The latter confirmatory factor analysis with a second-order common latent
370 International Journal of Business Communication 51(4)
dimension of organizational communication was therefore conducted. The analyses
were performed using the AMOS program 18.0. In comparing the fit of the factor
structure, the following fit indices were reported: chi-square, degrees of freedom, root
mean square of approximation (RMSEA), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and compara-
tive-fit index (CFI). Reliability of the resulting dimensions is reported by Cronbach’s
alpha (α) coefficient. The analyses were run separately in all three samples to test
whether a robust dimensional solution had been achieved: that is, whether it could be
reproduced in all three samples, based on respondents from different organizations
and different occupations. Correlational analyses were examined by means of Pear-
son’s r correlation coefficient. Regression analyses (multiple linear regressions) were
performed to examine how the communication components predicted employee
assessment of communication. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
V18 was used to analyze the data.
Results
Results From the Pilot Study
The data from the pilot study were organized in five categories, based on the analyses.
The first category, social contact, included three dimensions, namely contact with lead-
ership, disruptive relations, and coworker contact. The interviewees emphasized the
important relationship and interaction with both colleagues and leaders during a change
process, including issues such as regular contact, trust, and justice, and items within this
area of communication were therefore developed. The second category included the
topic of contact with central leadership. This category was included because of the
importance of the impact of different levels of leadership to the better understanding of
communication during a change process. Items related to central leadership (e.g., the
top leadership, corporate leadership, or political leadership) were therefore developed.
The third category concentrated on information. The processes of change were described
as being dependent on high-quality information: the right amount of information given
at the right time. The fourth category focused on influence and included both perceived
influence and perceived union assistance. Influence and participation were mentioned
as some of the main factors for successful implementation of change, especially related
to overcoming resistance in the change process. Items related to these issues were there-
fore included in the instrument. The fifth category emphasized barriers to improve-
ment, a topic that was mentioned in each of the prior categories. Therefore, items
related to barriers in each of these themes were included in this category.
Establishing the Factor Structure
The first step in validation involved determining dimensionality and reliability of the
items and dimensions. The objective was to establish a robust dimension structure that
could be reproduced in different samples and settings. Hence, the main criterion for
dimensionality and reliability for the communication components was a structure that
was reproduced in each of the three separate samples.
Christensen 371
Communication Components
Dimensionality was examined by means of explorative principal component analyses
with varimax and promax rotation and Kaiser’s extraction.
Social Contact. The 36 items measuring social contact were analyzed with explorative
principal component analysis. A robust three-dimension structure involving 15 of the
items was found in all samples. However, some minor exceptions were related to
Samples 2 and 3. The principle component analysis was performed with Kaiser’s
extraction criteria revealing seven dimensions in the first principal component analy-
sis done in Sample 3. Only three dimensions made theoretical sense, and in the initial
analyses, 21 items were excluded from further analysis because they did not adhere to
a clean structure and presented weak factor loadings. The resulting structure is pre-
sented in Table 2.
In Samples 1 and 2, there were some remaining cross-loadings, but those were
retained because the major sample demonstrated a clean structure. A further analysis
revealed that removing the items cross-loading the structure did not improve anything
but only moved problems to the other dimensions.
Based on the content of the variables, the dimensions were named “contact with
leadership,” “disruptive relations,” and “coworker contact.” The results of the PCAs
are shown in Table 2. Only factor loadings at .35 or above are included; this is close to
the conventional .40 criterion that is frequently applied as a cutoff (Ford, MacCallum,
& Tait, 1986).
Central Leadership. The five items measuring degree of central leadership were
extracted as one dimension. Two items were omitted owing to weak factor loadings.
Table 3 presents the results. An additional principal component analysis was per-
formed including the items from the social contact category and the items of central
leadership, because of similarities in the content of the two categories. The results
revealed, however, that central leadership emerged as an individually distinct dimen-
sion. The category was therefore kept in the initial form.
Information. The respondents were asked to assess 14 items regarding how messages
are communicated (e.g., for quality, timing, and comprehensibility). The principle
component analysis was performed with Kaiser’s extraction criteria revealing one
dimension. Seven items were excluded from further analysis because they did not
adhere to a clean structure (see Table 4).
Influence. The principal component analysis revealed that 5 of the 14 items fell into a
robust two-dimensional solution with acceptable reliability. The two dimensions were
named perceived influence and perceived union assistance (see Table 5).
Barriers to Improved Communication. The results of the items measuring barriers to
communication improvement demonstrated that six items constitute a robust dimen-
sion (see Table 6).
372 International Journal of Business Communication 51(4)
So far, the analyses have examined each dimension separately. Having established
dimensionality and reliability of the communication components, the next step was to
examine the bivariate correlations between the dimensions. See the correlation matrix
in Table 7.
Table 2. Dimensionality of the Items Measuring Social Contact (Factor Loadings).
Sample 3 Sample 2 Sample 1
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1. Contact with leadership
I can be open in bringing up subject matters
with my closest leader.
.83 — — .78 — — .82 — —
The dialogue between my closest leader and me
is good.
.82 — — .84 — — .81 — —
There is tolerance/acceptance in my
communication with my leader.
.81 — — .83 — — .80 — —
My closest leader keeps an open door policy for
the employees.
.80 — — .79 — — .70 — —
My closest leader is available if I wish to bring
up personal matters.
.76 — — .79 — — .78 — —
My closest leader trusts the employees. .71 — — .69 .42 — .59 .46 —
My closest leader respects me. .70 — — .61 — .38 .74 — —
My closest leader and I have a common
understanding of responsibility distribution.
.69 — — .76 — — .72 — —
The manager takes the employees’ different
needs into consideration.
.66 — — .51 .47 — .72 — —
Explained variance 48% 36% 50%
Cronbach’s alpha .931 .930 .933
2. Disruptive relations
Rumors are flourishing between the employees. — .80 — −.36 −.71 — — .80 —
My coworkers and I use a lot of time in
discussing our frustrations concerning the job
situation.
— .78 — — −.45 .51 — .73 —
We have personnel conflicts. — .76 — — −.78 — — .72 —
Explained variance 10% 10% 9%
Cronbach’s alpha .758 .550 .747
3. Coworker contact
The communication between my coworkers
and me is good.
— — .79 — — .68 — — .77
I can bring up work related topics with my
coworkers.
— — .77 — — .70 — — .65
I can bring up personal issues with my
coworkers.
— — .68 — .36 .57 — — .72
Explained variance 8% 7% 7%
Cronbach’s alpha .687 .682 .638
Note. — = factor loadings below .35.
Christensen 373
Table 7 demonstrates that the overall tendency suggests associations between the
communication components. Because some of the dimensions were highly correlated,
it was found necessary to retest the dimensionality of the communication components
by using principal component analyses with oblique rotation (promax). The results of
the oblique rotation reproduced the initial dimensions that were found by use of
orthogonal rotation (varimax).
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Having established robust dimensionalities across the three samples, the next step
was to test these dimensions simultaneously as an overall model in a confirmatory
factor analysis. This model included first-order factor only. This confirmatory factor
analysis was performed only on Sample 3. The intentions of the first confirmatory
Table 3. Dimensionality of the Items Measuring Central Leadership (Factor Loadings).
1. Central Leadership Sample 3 Sample 2 Sample 1
The communication with the leadership is marked by
openness.
.91 .87 .91
The leadership is personally involved in the employees’
on-the-job well-being.
.90 .86 .92
The leadership contacts the employees on a regular
basis.
.89 .84 .92
Explained variance 81% 74% 84%
Cronbach’s alpha .884 .821 .905
Table 4. Dimensionality of the Items Measuring Information (Factor Loadings).
Sample 3 Sample 2 Sample 1
1. Information
Generally there is an insufficient amount of
information provided.
.77 .76 78
The information uncovers the consequences of future
proceedings.
.77 .76 .78
The information uncovers the causes of future
proceedings.
.76 .75 .80
The information was provided too late. .74 .69 .75
The message contained within the information is
comprehensible.
.72 .57 .73
When the information is provided, there is not
enough time for discussion/questions/feedback.
.70 .70 .69
The information provided is relevant for me. .56 .51 .58
Explained variance 52% 46% 54%
Cronbach’s alpha .842 .805 .852
374 International Journal of Business Communication 51(4)
factor analysis was to test the eight-factor structure found in the previous principal
component analyses. The results revealed a satisfactory model fit to the data, as
indicated by the following fit indices’ values: χ²(566) = 1,907.44, p < .000, CFI =
0.92, GFI = 0.87, and RMSEA = 0.056. An RMSEA of 0.05 or less indicates a close
model fit; 0.05 to 0.08 indicates a fair fit; and 0.08 to 0.10 indicates a mediocre fit.
An RMSEA exceeding 0.10 reflects a poor fit to the observed data (Brown &
Cudeck, 1993).
Table 5. Dimensionality of the Items Measuring Influence (Factor Loadings).
Sample 3 Sample 2 Sample 1
1 2 1 2 1 2
1. Perceived influence
I am included in the evaluation
process.
.90 — .91 — .86 —
My opinions are heard. .89 — .87 — .87 —
There is not enough time and/or
place for discussion and feedback.
.80 — .74 — .80 —
Explained variance 45% 43% 46%
Cronbach’s alpha .837 .789 .836
2. Perceived union assistance
Unions provide complete information
about my choices/rights.
— .96 — .94 — .90
The unions bring my view/opinion
forward.
— .95 — .94 — .91
Explained variance 37% 35% 35%
Cronbach’s alpha .908 .864 .881
Note. — = factor loadings below .35.
Table 6. Dimensionality of the Items Measuring Barriers to Improved Communication
(Factor Loadings).
1. Barriers to Improvement Sample 3 Sample 2 Sample 1
A lot remains unsaid because of negative consequences
for those who introduce difficult topics.
.84 .75 .86
Certain individuals may hamper communication. .83 .79 .85
There are easily too many rumors. .80 .68 .85
Information content is poor in its quality .76 .76 .78
Certain groups may hamper the flow of
communication.
.75 .77 .80
Communication is too unstructured. .68 .64 .63
Explained variance 61% 54% 64%
Cronbach’s alpha .871 .825 .884
Christensen 375
Furthermore, it was of interest to see whether the eight-factor communication
instrument was a homogeneous measure of organizational communication with differ-
ent facets. Therefore, a second confirmatory factor analysis with a second-order com-
mon latent dimension of organizational communication was conducted. The analysis
was also conducted in Sample 3. The results revealed that the model had a satisfactory
fit to the data according to the following values: χ²(586) = 2,105.84, p < .000, CFI =
0.91, GFI = 0.86, and RMSEA = 0.058. See Table 8 for the confirmatory factor analy-
sis with the second-order latent dimension. The results revealed that seven of the eight
factors loaded strongly on the latent second-order dimension of organizational com-
munication. The union assistance dimension exhibited a low factor loading with a
loading of only .10 (see Figure 1). The goodness-of-fit indices of both models are
summarized in Table 9. Consequently, the dimensions were used for further
analyses.
Predictive Validity
Having established the structure and dimensionality of the communication factors, the
next step was to examine the predictive validity. This involved examining how the
communication factors predicted the “employees’ assessments of communication,” an
item measuring the employees’ evaluation of communication (Is there sufficient com-
munication in your department?). This was examined in Sample 1, and analyses were
performed in the total sample and three separate groups: Group 1 consisted of employ-
ees experiencing no reorganization; Group 2 included employees going through reor-
ganization; Group 3 contained employees who had recently been involved in completed
reorganization. These analyses provided the opportunity to differentiate between
groups within specific stages of a change process. A regression model was then speci-
fied by entering all of the communication factors as predictors for the “employees’
assessments of communication.” This regression model was tested in the total sample
and each group (see Table 10).
Table 7. Correlation Matrix of the Communication Components (Pearson’s r Coefficient).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Contact with leadership
2. Disruptive relations .51*
3. Coworker contact −.52* −.27*
4. Contact with central leadership .55* −43* .32*
5. Information .57* −.538* .37* .59*
6. Perceived influence .55* −.42* .36* .50* .54*
7. Perceived union assistance .10* −.01* .16* .01 .09* .15*
8. Barriers to improved comm. −.54* .67* −.35* −.47* −.60* −.46* −.05
* p < .01.
376 International Journal of Business Communication 51(4)
Table 8. Results of a Confirmatory Factor Analysis With a Second-Order Common Latent
Dimension (Sample 3).
Estimate SE β
Contact with leadership (ξ 1)
X1: I can be open in bringing up subject matters with my closest
leader.
1.00 .84
X2: The dialogue between my closest leader and me is good. 0.92 0.03 .81
X3: There is tolerance/acceptance in my communication with my
leader.
1.04 0.03 .88
X4: My closest leader keeps an open-door policy for the
employees.
0.99 0.04 .83
X5: My closest leader is available if I wish to bring up personal
matters.
0.92 0.04 .71
X6: My closest leader trusts the employees. 0.72 0.03 .74
X7: My closest leader respects me. 0.76 0.03 .73
X8: My closest leader and I have a common understanding of
responsibility distribution.
0.82 0.03 .76
X9: The manager takes the employees’ different needs into
consideration.
0.79 0.04 .71
Disruptive relations (ξ 2)
X1: Rumors are flourishing between the employees. 1.00 .64
X2: My coworkers and I use a lot of time in discussing our
frustrations concerning the job situation.
1.31 0.08 .81
X3: We have personnel conflicts. 1.14 0.08 .71
Coworker contact (ξ 3)
X1: The communication between my coworkers and me is good. 1.00 .73
X2: I can bring up work related topics with my coworkers. 1.09 0.08 .70
X3: I can bring up personal issues with my coworkers. 1.23 0.10 .60
Central leadership (ξ 4)
X1: The communication with the leadership is marked by openness. 1.00 .84
X2: The leadership is personally involved in the employees’ on-the-
job well-being.
1.00 0.03 .89
X3: The leadership contacts the employees on a regular basis. 1.03 0.04 .84
Information (ξ 5)
X1: Generally there is an insufficient amount of information
provided.
1.00 .71
X2: The information uncovers the consequences of future
proceedings.
1.17 0.06 .75
X3: The information uncovers the causes of future proceedings. 1.00 0.06 .67
X4: The information was provided too late. −0.78 0.05 −.65
X5: The message contained within the information is
comprehensible.
−0.93 0.05 −.70
X6: When the information is provided, there is not enough time for
discussion/questions/feedback.
−0.87 0.05 −.68
X7: The information provided is relevant for me. −0.55 0.04 −.48
(continued)
Christensen 377
Estimate SE β
Perceived influence (ξ 6)
X1: My opinions are heard. 1.00 .87
X2: I am included in the evaluation process. 1.07 0.04 .69
X3: There is not enough time and/or place for discussion and
feedback.
0.87 0.04 .83
Perceived union assistance (ξ 7)
X1: Unions provide complete information about my choices/rights. 1.00 .92
X2: The unions bring my view/opinion further on. 0.96 0.24 .89
Barriers to improvement (ξ 8)
X1: A lot remains unsaid because of negative consequences for
those who introduce difficult topics.
1.00 .82
X2: Certain individuals may hamper communication. 0.88 0.04 .77
X3: There are easily too many rumors. 0.97 0.04 .77
X4: Information content is poor in its quality. 0.71 0.03 .71
X5: Certain groups may hamper the flow of communication. 0.74 0.04 .68
X6: Communication is too unstructured. 0.62 0.04 .60
Note. All p values are <.001.
Table 8. (continued)
Table 10 shows that the regression equations explained 52% of the variance in
Group 1 (i.e., employees not experiencing organizational change) compared with 46%
of the variance in Group 2 (i.e., employees experiencing ongoing change); in Group 3,
60% of the variance was explained in those who had been through a completed reor-
ganization. Overall, the results of the regression analyses suggest a relationship
between the communication factors and the item “Is there sufficient communication in
your department?” In other words, the regression models indicate that the communica-
tion factors are related to employee assessments of communication item, which in turn
indicates a predictive validity of the communication factors.
Discussion
The aim of the current study was to develop, test, and partly validate a set of organiza-
tional communication factors and to investigate how these were related to organiza-
tional change. The theoretical framework was underpinning the need to develop
organizational communication as a part of the strategic-change management.
The communication instrument demonstrated predictive validity in all three change/
reorganization situations; however, the actual reorganization situation did not emerge
as the one where the instrument explained most of the variance as predicted. The com-
munication instrument was functional in all three situations, and the eight-dimensional
instrument was able to differentiate between the situations and as a result follow an
organizational change as it develops over time. Organizational change is not some-
thing static but is an ongoing process that develops and fluctuates over time. It is
378 International Journal of Business Communication 51(4)
Contact with
leadership
Disruptive
relations
Coworker
contact
Central
leadership
Information
Perceived
influence
Union
influence
Organisational
communication
Barriers to
improvement
.80
-.80
.59
.73
-.83
.74
.10
-.80
Figure 1. The factorial structure of the second-order common latent dimension of
organizational communication.
Table 9. Model-Fit Indices for the Two Models (n = 763).
χ2 df p
Root Mean
Square of
Approximation
Goodness-
of-Fit Index
Comparative-
Fit Index
Model 1: Model with first-
order factors only.
1,907.44 566 .000 0.056 0.87 0.92
Model 2: Model with an
additional second-order
factor
2,105.84 586 .000 0.058 0.86 0.91
Christensen 379
Table 10. Regression Model Including All Communication Components as Predictors.
Dependent Variable: Employee Assessment of Communication (Is There Sufficient
Communication in Your Department?).
Total Sample
(N = 398)
No
Reorganization
(n = 76)
Reorganization
(n = 120)
Finished
Reorganization
(n = 69)
β t β t β t β t
Social contact
Contact with
leadership
.25 4.58*** .2 1.952 .32 3.12** .34 2.541*
Disruptive
relations
−.19 −4.05*** −.26 −2.57* −.25 −3.077** −.13 −1.24
Coworker contact .1 2.32* .08 0.84 .07 0.81 .29 2.74**
Central leadership
Central leadership −.06 −1.33 .05 0.56 −.07 0.75 −.39 −3.66**
Information
Information .16 2.624** .45 2.89** .01 0.12 .42 3.43**
Influence
Perceived influence .05 1.02 .02 0.15 .08 0.87 .02 0.18
Perceived union
assistance
.04 1.08 .07 0.74 .02 0.26 .1 1.27
Barriers to improvement
Barriers to
improved
communication
−.16 −2.89** .1 0.75 −.21 −2.26* −.03 −0.22
Adjusted R² .47 .523 .461 .596
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
therefore important that the instruments are able to capture these fluctuations and are
able to distinguish between different types of change situations. It was interesting to
note from the results that the different dimensions had different impacts on employee
assessment of communication in the different stages of the change process.
The results of the principal component analyses established five communication
categories with subcategories in some of them. Communication categories 1 through
4 covered areas that, according to Goldhaber (1999), represent important aspects of
organizational communication. The two first communication categories (i.e., social
contact and central leadership) pertained to employee perceptions of communication
in terms of social interaction. The aspects of social interaction may also be seen as
related to Tukiainen’s (2001) emphasis on management conduct as one of the dimen-
sions in organizational communication. Furthermore, this is also in line with Johnson’s
(1992) suggestion that social relationships are a major structural component of organi-
zational communication. In a situation of planned change in an organization, the
380 International Journal of Business Communication 51(4)
process could be perceived as a threat to interpersonal relationships, and resistance
could be a product of interaction. Lack of good communication strategies, close inter-
action, and adequate information fuels rumors and gossip, which could lead to
increased anxiety and insecurity about the future in the organization (Ford & Ford,
2009; Waddell et al., 2007).
In accordance with Goldhaber (1999), the purpose and direction of a given message
are important features to consider in organizational communication. This notion was
supported by the third communication category of the current study, information.
Change in many organizations could lead to increased job insecurity and lack of pre-
dictability (Allen, et al., 2007). High-quality information provided during change and
reorganization seems to reduce psychological insecurity about the effects of change
and in addition increases acceptance, openness, and commitment to change. At the
same time, inferior or insufficient information seem to have negative consequences,
such as cynicism about change (Bordia et al., 2004; Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991;
Wanberg & Banas, 2000; Wanous et al., 2000).
The fourth communication category was influence, and it illustrated the fact that
communication takes place within an interactive system. As argued by Goldhaber
(1999), organizational communication both is influenced by its surroundings and
influences them. The practice of organizational communication can be expected, on
the one hand, to affect employees’ perception of their own influence on the matters at
hand. On the other, this perception may in turn shape the communication process. As
an example of this second possibility, if the employees feel that they are excluded by
definition from taking part in any decision making, this experience may overshadow
the content of communication. Related to change and resistance to change, one of the
most effective strategies is to involve employees directly in planning and implement-
ing change and thereby allowing them to contribute to making the implementation of
change successful (Argyris & Schön, 1996). By being involved and participating, the
employees could investigate the barriers to implementation, increase their motivation,
and increase their effort in making the changes work (Argyris & Schön, 1996). The
results of the second confirmatory factor analysis with a second-order latent dimen-
sion of organizational communication revealed that union assistance had a very low
factor loading on organizational communication, which indicates that union assistance
had a weaker association with organizational communication than expected. However,
it is still important to argue the need to include it in a measure of organizational com-
munication, especially related to the unions’ significant role in negotiations, hearings,
and discussions related to change processes. In addition to these four communication
categories, all in line with Goldhaber’s (1999) description of organizational communi-
cation, the current study identified a fifth communication category, barriers to
improved communication. This communication category related to employee percep-
tion of aspects in the organization that they found obstructing communication and its
improvement. The barriers to organizational communication could easily increase
during a change process, caused by the proliferation of rumors, insecurity, and anxiety
about the future (Graetz, Rimmer, Lawrence & Smith, 2006). It is necessary to iden-
tify these barriers at different stages of a change process to be able to reduce them and
deal with them. The repeated testing in each sample of the communication dimensions
Christensen 381
suggested a robust and generalizable set of dimensions, further supported by satisfac-
tory reliability of the indices in all three samples.
Predictive Validity
The overall idea is that if a concept can be demonstrated empirically to relate to a
criterion or other concept as a theory predicts, such a result supports validity. Predictive
validity was examined here by testing how the communication factors related to the
item “Is there sufficient communication in your department?” The results of the
regression models revealed that the communication factors are contributory predictors
to organizational communication. This conclusion supported the aim by demonstrat-
ing that the communication factors had predictive validity. In other words, there is, as
was assumed, a relationship between the communication factors and the criterion
(employee assessment of communication). In addition, the regression results revealed
that the communication factors contributed in all investigated organizational circum-
stances: Group 1, employees not experiencing reorganization, Group 2, employees
experiencing current reorganization, and Group 3, employees experiencing just
recently finished reorganization. However, the regression models overall explained
52% (no reorganization), 46% (reorganization), and 60% (completed reorganization)
in the three groups, respectively, indicating that the instrument, with the included eight
dimensions, was able to differentiate the performance of the instrument in different
situations of change.
As noted by both Spike and Lesser (1995) and Galpin (1996), communication is
part of every step in a change process and is thus crucial to success in organizational
change. However, one important aspect in this context is the question, What is change?
When does a change process begin and end? And is it possible to single out one dis-
tinct change process? The communication instrument is a strategic tool in change set-
tings to diagnose lack of information and disruptive relations and to overcome the
barriers to improvement. In a change situation, it was also important that the instru-
ment actually distinguished between different developments and fluctuation during
the change process as revealed by the analyses of predictive validity. Preparation is
central to any organizational change process and includes informing all parties about
the forthcoming changes. The need for efficient communication is very much present
in these preparatory phases of a change process. This, however, demands the effort of
establishing effective organizational communication on the same level of strategy as
the change process. Although processes of organizational change are intertwined with
the process of communication, Galpin (1996) argued that most organizations concen-
trate on the technical, financial, and operational features. In order to lift organizational
communication to a strategic level, communication must be analyzed systematically.
As communication among other aspects represents a preparatory tool for the change
process (the one that is to be implemented), the diagnosis of the current status of the
organizational communication ought to be the first step.
The measurement of organizational communication as introduced in this study
could be applied as a way to establish the employees’ perceptions of the current state
of organizational communication. Furthermore, communication must be considered
382 International Journal of Business Communication 51(4)
when looking at positive factors for improving the psychosocial environment and
employee job satisfaction. The amount of research suggesting an impact of negative
factors on the work environment is enormous. The subject matter of organizational
communication may, however, be seen as representing a positive perspective, in that
it can be used as a strategy for improving both organizational efficiency and employee
working conditions and satisfaction.
In these datasets, it would have been preferable to follow an organizational process
over time in one organization when testing and validating the instrument, and in a rep-
lication study, this will be recommended. However, it also needs to be clear that it is
difficult or impossible to measure when a change process begins and ends in an organi-
zation. Furthermore, it would be of great importance, if it is possible, to follow the same
employees in a longitudinal study during a change process or downsizing process.
Conclusion
The review of the literature emphasized the crucial role of organizational communica-
tion in a good psychosocial work environment, and especially so in times of change
(Barrett, 2002; Salem, 1999). When searching for suitable instruments to measure orga-
nizational communication during change, it was found that the measures already devel-
oped were diverse and that none of them was specifically related to change processes at
work. An instrument of organizational communication was therefore developed, tested,
and partly validated. The outcome was based on test results from three different sam-
ples, where a robust eight-dimensional factor structure of organizational communica-
tion was found in all three samples. Analyses confirmed that the eight-dimensional
structure had a good model fit to the data. The results also supported the finding that the
instrument was a homogenous measure of organizational communication, including
different facets of the concept. The analyses of predictive validity revealed that the
instrument was predictive of employee assessment of communication across three dif-
ferent settings of organizational change. The results revealed, however, that the com-
munication instrument was applicable in all three situations, and not particularly in the
change situation. Change is, however, a continuous process with various developments
over time. The ongoing changes in an organization require a survey instrument that
measures different facets within this development. The instrument includes eight dif-
ferent dimensions, which have different impacts in these change situations. This dem-
onstrates that the communication instrument is able to differentiate between various
change situations. The importance of communication goes beyond change and is inter-
twined with all organizational activities. Communication is a part of an organization’s
everyday life, but in many cases it can be problematic to uphold because the manage-
ment can easily forget the special importance it has during a change situation, as a result
of the financial, technical, and operational demands of the change process.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Christensen 383
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: The author received financial support for the research from the
Research Council of Norway.
Notes
1. Cornerstone industry: An industry that is large in relation to the population of the municipal-
ity in which it is located and is therefore vital to employment and the development of a local
community.
2. The design also served purposes outside the scope of this paper but that are not noted in this
context.
3. In Norwegian: Statistisk sentralbyrå.
References
Allen, J., Jimmieson, N. L., Bordia, P., & Irmer, B. E. (2007). Uncertainty during organizational
change: Managing perceptions through communication. Journal of Change Management,
7(2), 187-210.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barrett, D. J. (2002). Change communication: Using strategic employee communication to facili-
tate major change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7(4), 219-231.
Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (2004). Uncertainty during orga-
nizational change: Types, consequences, and management strategies. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 18(4), 507-532.
Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen
& J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Bruckman, J. C. (2008). Overcoming resistance to change: Causal factors, interventions, and
critical values. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 11, 211-219.
Buchanan, D. A., & Storey, J. (1997). Role-taking and role-switching in organizational change:
The four pluralities. In I. McLoughlin & M. Harria (Eds.), Innovation, organizational
change and technology. London: International Thompson.
Burnes, B. (2004). Managing change. Harlow: FT/Prentice Hall.
Central Bureau of Statistics (SSB). (2005). Statistisk årbok 2005 [Statistical yearbook of
Norway 2005]. Retrieved from http://www.ssb.no/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/
statistisk-aarbok-2005
Dallner, M., Elo, A.-L., Gamberale, F., Hottinen, V., Knardahl, S., Lindström, K., . . .Orhede, E.
(2000). Validation of the General Nordic Questionnaire (QPS Nordic) for psychological
and social factors at work (Nord 2000:12). Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
De Nobile, J. J., & McCormick, J. (2008). Organizational communication and job satisfac-
tion in Australian Catholic primary schools. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 36(1), 101-122.
Doucouliagos, C. (1995). Worker participation and productivity in labor-managed and partici-
patory capitalist forms: A meta-analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 49(1),
58-77.
Downs, C., & Hazen, M. D. (1977). A factor analytic study of communication satisfaction.
Journal of Business Communication, 14(3), 63-73.
http://www.ssb.no/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/statistisk-aarbok-2005
384 International Journal of Business Communication 51(4)
Downs, C. W., DeWine, S., & Greenbaum, H. H. (1994). Measures of organizational communi-
cation. In R. B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, H.-E. Sypher, et al. (Eds.), Communication research
measures: A sourcebook (pp. 57-78). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Erwin, D., & Garman, A. (2009). Resistance to organizational change: Linking research and
practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(1), 39-56.
Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analy-
sis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39(2),
291-314.
Ford, J., & Ford, L. (2009). Resistance to change: A reexamination and extension. Research in
Organizational Change and Management, 17, 211-239.
Gagné, M., Koestner, R., & Zuckerman, M. (2000). Facilitating acceptance of organizational
change: The importance of self-determination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
30(9), 1843-1852.
Galpin, T. J. (1996). The human side of change: A practical guide to organizational redesign.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Garvin, D. (2000). Learning in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Goldhaber, G. M. (1999). Organizational communication in 1976: Present domain and future
directions. In P. Salem (Ed.), Organizational communication and change, (pp. 4-30).
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Goldhaber, G., & Krivonos, P. (1977). The ICA communication audit: Process, status, and cri-
tique. Journal of Business Communication, 15(1), 41-64.
Graetz, F., Rimmer, M., Lawrence, A., & Smith, A. (2006). Managing organizational change.
Milton, Australia: Wiley.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey ques-
tionnaires, Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104-121.
Johnson, J. D. (1992). Approaches to organizational communication structure. Journal of
Business Research, 25(2), 99-113.
Jones, Q., Dunphy, D., Fishman, R., Larne, M., & Canter, C. (2006). In great company:
Unlocking the secrets of cultural transformation. Sydney: Human Synergistics.
Kim, J. O., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to do
it. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences (Series
No. 07-013). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Koontz, H. (2001). Management: A global perspective. 10th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Langørgen, A., Galloway, T. A., & Aaberge, R. (2006). Gruppering av kommuner etter folke-
mengde og økonomiske rammebetingelser 2003. [Group division of municipalities based
on population and economic conditions 2003] (Report 2006/8). Oslo: Central Bureau of
Statistics.
Pardo del Val, M., & Martinez Fuentes, C. (2003). Resistance to change: A literature review and
empirical study. Management Decision, 41(2), 148-155.
Rafferty, A. E., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2010). Team change climate: A group-level analysis of
the relationships among change information and change participation, role stressors, and
well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(5), 551-586.
Reber, A. S. (1995). Dictionary of psychology. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Roberts, K., & O`Reilly, C. A. (1974). Measuring organizational communication. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 59(3), 321-326.
Salem, P. (Ed.). (1999). Organizational communication and change. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Christensen 385
Schweiger, D. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger:
A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 110-135.
Spike, B. K., & Lesser, K. (1995). We have met the enemy. Journal of Business Strategy, 16(2),
17-23.
Towers-Perrin. (2006). Ten steps to creating an engaged workforce. Brussels: Author.
Tukiainen, T. (2001). An agenda model of organizational communication. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 6(1), 47-52.
Van Vuuren, M., de Jong, M., & Seydel, E. (2007). Direct and indirect effects of supervisor com-
munication on organizational commitment. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 12(2), 116-128.
Waddell, D., Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (2007). Organization development and change.
Pyrmont, NSW, Australia: Nelson ITP.
Waddell, D., Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (2011). Organizational change: Development &
transformation. South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes to changes in a reorganizing
workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change:
Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group and Organization Management, 25(2),
132-153.
Weick, K. E. (2000). Emergent change as a universal in organizations. In M. Beer & N. Nohria
(Eds.), Breaking the code of change, (pp. 223-241). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Wiio, O. A. (1975). Systems of information, communication, and organization. Helsinki:
Helsinki Research Institute for Business Economics.
Wilson, N., & Peel, M. J. (1991). The impact on absenteeism and quits of profit sharing and other
forms of employee participation. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 44(3), 454-468.
Author Biography
Marit Christensen, PhD, is working as an associate professor at the Department of Psychology,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Copyright of Journal of Business Communication is the property of Association for Business
Communication and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
Copyright of International Journal of Business Communication is the property of Association
for Business Communication and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Week 5 Assignment Resources/Corporate Communication - A Strategic Tool for Crisis Management
Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance and Marketing, 3(2), 55-67, September 2011 55
Corporate Communication: A Strategic Tool for Crisis Management
Dr. Rachna Gupta
Kathua Campus, University of JAMMU, India
Abstract
In today‘s rapidly changing business environment almost every company experiences crises. Though
many of them never try to overcome. Crisis problems are generally not solved in the primary state and are
usually chaotic, without any strategic management plans (Ben-Yair, Golenko-Ginzburg Laslo 2007,
Kaplinski; 2008). The situation gets worse when the companies‘ employees as well as internal and
external environment have to be informed. Therefore it is necessary to represent the organization
realistically to train the specialists of knowledge management (Kumpikaite, 2008). The situation does not
become easier because of the negative attitude to crisis (Virbickaite,, 2009). Therefore crisis solution can
bring positive consequences in the companies‘ (Remeikiene, 2009). One of them is efficient
communication conflict management during crisis period.
1
Moreover; in present era of globalization
where companies are experiencing the transformational changes such as incorporation, international
capital appearance, wide geography of the companies, mobility of employees, global crisis, there is a need
to manage communication process in business to generate communication ideas for crisis prevention and
management. Therefore in this changing context crisis management process should be re-evaluated in the
theoretical as well as applies form for the efficient crisis management plans. The paper makes an
assessment of crisis planning and strategic management processes described in the existing literature and
makes an attempt to answer how to strategically manage crisis in business environment and prepare crisis
management plans, with efficient corporate communications.
Keywords : Corporate Communication, Strategic Management, Crisis Management
* Assistant Professor, The Business School, University of Jammu
mahajan.rachna@gmail.com
Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance and Marketing, 3(2), 55-67, September 2011 56
Introduction
Managers, consultants and researchers have traditionally been focused on the problems of
financial performance and growth, but have paid little attention to effective management of
corporate crisis. This crisis problems are not solved in its primary stage and usually chaotic
without any strategic crisis solution or crisis management plans (Yair, Galenko-Ginzburg, Laslo,
2007; Bivanis, Tuncikiene, 2007; Kaplinski, 2008; Markovic, 2008). It can create related threats:
public safety, financial loss and reputation loss. Some crisis such as industrial accidents and
product harm can result in injuries and even loss of lives. Cases such as Three Mile island
nuclear power plant in 1979, Cyanide in Tylenol capsules of Johnson & Johnson in 1982,
Leakage of methyl isocyanides gas from a storage tank at the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal,
India in 1984 and Coca-Cola case in Belgium in 1999. Nowadays the companies have to be
oriented to the MOTTO of management strategy to continue change in management‘s
philosophy to manage socio-economic factors in business environment and to be socially
responsible. In order to manage crisis situation, it is important to understand crisis management
and management processes in an organization (Klein, 1981; Rosenblatt, Sheaffee, 2002). It is
also important to inform the employees about the changes in a company‘s external and intyernal
environment (Deephouse, 2005; Sare, 2005; Kompikatie, 2007; Rees, 2008). A new paradigm
has emerged takes in to accounts such issues and is getting due acceptance in scientific
discussions and global management practice – corporate communication importance in
conceptual and practical levels. Nowadays when the companies are experiencing the
transformational changes – incorporation, international capital appearance, wide geography odf
companies, mobility of employees, global crisis, there is a need to manage communication
process in business to generate communication ideas for crisis prevention and management.
This paper analyses the decision of crisis management in a conceptual paradigm and emphasis
the importance of communication in crisis planning and strategic management process. The
paper also emphasis on how to strategically manage crisis in business environment plans,
generating communication ideas crisis prevention and management.
Understanding Corporate Communication as a Management Function
There are two methodological aspects of understanding the corporate communication. The first
aspect is to describe the relation of social environment and business expression management of
corporate communication system (Heath, 1994; Varey, White, 2000) and maintenance of
company‘s business strategy – implementation of practical decision (Steyn, 2003, Goodman,
2004, 2006). In the second methodological aspect, it is necessary ton explore the case for, and
value of corporate practice and productive global relationships as underpinning of sustainable
business strategy (Goodman, 2006). These methodologies can be discussed in details as:
First Methodology: The term corporate communication is increasingly being used in practice to
describe the management function that is referred to as public relations, crisis and emergency
communication, corporate citizenship, reputation management, community relations, media
relations, investors relations, employees relations, government relations, marketing
communication, management communication, corporate branding, image building and
Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance and Marketing, 3(2), 55-67, September 2011 57
advertising. According to this first methodological aspect, this understanding explores the
integration of corporate and marketing communication system of managing. It defines a need for
a total stake holders perspective and to integrate corporate communication activities. According
to Varey (2000), marketing is describes as a special case of human communication in which all
elements of marketing mix all seen as communicative in action. With the corporate
communication model of systematic managing is forwarded foe this purpose. It means that
corporate enterprise has two primary communication systems that are inter-related. The internal
system directs the activities of organizing to accomplish goals that are based on the gathering
and interpretation of data on expectations and attitudes and on conditions for corporatio ns
relevant environment thought external channel of communication. External systems of
communication are also used to present relevant information about the internal processes of
corporation to the relevant external environment to attempt to influence the behavior of various
publics. The focus of internal communication is to establish the organizational structure and
stability while external communication focuses on the innovative for corporate development.
These have to be a proper balance between the two for stability. Managers of present corporate
houses have started realizing the importance of communication management systems as the core
function of enterprise community. The corporate communication approaches enables to
reconciliation of social and economical interests for business is in reality is a socio – economic
institution upon which every employee is dependent. Proper communication facilitates the
organizational performance. Hence, it proves that communication is a core of the present and
future company approach and communication between people is core of the business activity.
Second Methodology : As stated earlier according to the second methodology it is important to
find out case for, and the value of corporate communication practices in professional
development (Valackiene, Asta, 2010). For a successful sustainable business strategy it is
important to target a positive relationship between corporate communication practice and
productive global relationship (2006). Successful professional development of the next
generation of corporate communication executives will focus on understanding of corporate
communication functions and on strategic implementation capabilities. This practice of corporate
communication has profound implication for professional development programme world wide
as per the findings of Corporate Communication Institution (CI ―Corporate Communications
Practices and Trends‖ 2005).
Challenges for Corporate Communication as a Strategic Management Function
Corporate communication is the strategic management process by which an organization
communicates with various audiences to mutual benefit of both and to improved competitive
advantage. Importance of corporate communication in crisis management as an early warning
system is beyond dispute (Lauzen, 1995). It provides the cultural and cross cultural fertilization
with their publics and relay organizational values to and from their audiences. It is widely
accepted that corporate communication has a crucial role in total business system (Winner,
1993). Though recent studies have confirmed corporate communication as a strategic function
still it is centered on following challenges (Goodman, 2006)
Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance and Marketing, 3(2), 55-67, September 2011 58
the need to build trust with all internal and external audiences;
the expectation by the corporation to accomplish more with less;
the demand to build a responsible and accountable global corporate culture in response to
a hostile environment for multinational corporations;
the perception of the corporate communication executive as ―counsel to the CEO‖ and
―manager of the company's‖ reputation;
the understanding of the global impact of the local act, and the local impact of the global
act;
the demand for greater transparency and disclosure have made media relations more
complex and strategic;
the expectation that the company be a good citizen and make money;
the reality of global terrorism makes crisis communication planning a critical success
factor for corporate communication professionals;
the understanding of transparency as the best practice strategy for reputation
management; and
the knowledge that writing remains the core skill
Global companies and their brands touch lives of more people then government representatives
ever could. The example is TATA Group which has touched the lives of millions of Indians with
different subsidiaries Telco, Tata tele services limited, Tata Finley, TCS, Voltas, Chroma,
Westside, Tata chemicals, Tata Tea, Indian Hotels, Tanishq Jewellery etc. the company has its
products in information technology, Engineering, Materials, Services, Energy, Consumer
products, Chemicals etc. business has often served a large role in our society than carrying off
the activities of commerce. They can serve a diplomatic function because of their inter cultural
sensitivity as well as their understanding of global enterprise they work for and of the world at
large. CCI Practices and Trends for 2000 to 2010 offer some guidance which include;
Academic Application
Corporate Application
Academic Application: Professional development programmes has been a growth area in higher
education. In an interdisciplinary and applied field such as corporate communication current
practices and trends can inform the academic community on what to offer in professional degree
programme.
Corporate Application: Understanding of corporate communication can provide a vision a
company requires in information driven economy for strategic planning. Corporations use it to
lead, motivate, persuade and inform employees and public as well.
Corporate communication is seen as consisting of three potentially interactive and synergistic
dimensions – public relations, marketing communications and human resource management
(Kitchen, 1997). Generalizing and conceptually basing it can be claimed that corporate
communication confirms as a strategic management function. This helps to describe a model of
corporate communication style of managing. Corporate communication responsive to the
Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance and Marketing, 3(2), 55-67, September 2011 59
demands of professionals should focus on the strategic challenges executive face (adopted from
Valackiene, Asta, 2010)
building trust;
efficiency;
building a culture of accountability;
counseling the corporation and the CEO;
managing the company reputation;
managing the impact of globalization;
transparency in media relations and reputation management;
managing corporate citizenship and corporate social responsibility;
managing issues and crises;
writing as the core skill for corporate communication
Corporate communication is more than science it is interdisciplinary, drawing on the methods
and findings of anthropology, communication, sociology and psychology.
Models For Developing Corporate Communication Strategy
Before moving to the crisis communication strategy models it is very important to review the
existing models of corporate communication strategy.
Grunig & Repper’s model : Grunig & Repper‘s model (in Grunig 1992:124-150) for the
strategic management of public relations consists of three stages: The stakeholder stage refers to
the identification of strategic stakeholders through environmental scanning and the need for
ongoing communication with them. The public stage refers to the identification of
groups/individuals who see the consequences of organisational decisions as problematic,
involving them in decision making. The issues stage deals with the management of issues and the
important role of the media therein. These stages are regarded as the phases in formulating
corporate communication strategy, whereas stages four to seven (objectives, planning,
implementation and valuation) refer to the operational level of corporate communication Moss,
Warnaby & Newman (2000:283, 284) criticise this model as failing to account sufficiently for
potential variations in the process of strategy-making and for not explaining how corporate
communication‘s role may differ at the different strategy levels.
Moss & Warnaby’s conceptual model : The conceptual model of Moss & Warnaby (in Kitchen
1997:65) is the most extensive attempt to date to explain how corporate communication fits into
the strategic decision making processes in organisations. It overcomes some of the chief
weaknesses of the Grunig & Repper model (in Grunig 1992) and provides a framework for
linking the development of corporate communication strategy to corporate and business-unit
strategy. This model outlines the environmental scanning role of corporate communication at the
corporate level, identifying and analysing strategic issues and stakeholders, and advising top
management on how the different strategy options might influence relationships with key
stakeholders. At the business level the role of corporate communication is to ‖support the
Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance and Marketing, 3(2), 55-67, September 2011 60
development of distinctive capability-based strategies‖ (Kay, in Kitchen 1997:66), helping to
build and enhance the organisation‘s reputation and that of its products or services. Corporate
communication strategies thus focus on key stakeholder relationships and issues that may
constrain or enhance an organisation‘s ability to achieve its business goals and ―should be
viewed in the context of the corporate and business strategies from which they derive their
essential purpose‖ (Moss & Warnaby, in Kitchen 1997:67). The communication programmes
that operationalise these strategies can be asymmetrical or symmetrical in nature.
Steyn’s (educational) model: This model for developing corporate communication strategy is
the outcome of a longitudinal action research project being conducted at the University of
Pretoria (Steyn 2000b). The hypothesised model has been implemented amongst 94 non-profit
organisations, 48 government institutions and 68 small-to-medium sized companies in South
Africa, and has been adapted based on the findings of the action research. It consists of an
analysis of the organisation‘s internal environment (corporate profile, organisational strategies
and policies, corporate culture and values), as well as a stakeholder and issues analysis of the
external and internal environment by means of environmental scanning. The organisation‘s key
strategic issues are identified, described and classified according to a typology (Steyn 2000b;
Steyn & Puth 2000) that differentiates between:
(strategic) organisational issues -- where communication is not the cause of the problem,
but can
either provide a solution, or at least explain the issue;
(strategic) communication issues -- where too little or no communication with external
stakeholders or employees caused the problem); and
(tactical) communication issues where messages are not reaching the target groups.
The implications/effects of the strategic issues on each of the stakeholder groups are identified
and become the focus of the communication with strategic stakeholders/publics. Corporate
communicationstrategy entails to formulate clearly what should be communicated to strategic
stakeholders to solve the problems created by the implications of a strategic issue or to capitalise
on the opportunitiespresented. Communication goals to be addressed in plans/campaigns are
developed based on the corporate communication strategy for each strategic issue (Steyn 2000b;
Steyn & Puth 2000).
The above models for developing strategy at the functional level provide considerable insight on
the corporate communication strategy formulation process
The Plan of the Efficient Crises Communication
Crisis planning enables management to not only evaluate the dynamics within a business
environment, but also evaluate similar changes related issues. In this way, action planning may
be helpful in integrating the constituent parts of a strategy process and developing the crisis
management perspectives.
Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance and Marketing, 3(2), 55-67, September 2011 61
The most viable methodological approach in the cognition of Crisis Communication is systems
approach. Theoretical studies (Bernstein, 2004; Chong, 2004; Turney, 2004; Zerman, 2004;
Seymuor, 2006; Luecke, 2007) show that Communication and Mastering the Media are an
important tool for every crisis handler and in each active stage of Crisis Management:
contingency planning, containment, and resolution. It is important as an instrument of control
and coordination. Effective media relations begin before a crisis occurs. The basic steps of
effective Crisis Communications are not difficult, but they require advance in work in order to
minimize damage.
Chronology of Crisis Communication
Bernstein (2004) implement‘s these 10 steps of Crisis Communications; the first seven of which
can and should be undertaken before any crisis occurs.
1. Identify Your Crisis Communications Team: Ideally, the team will be led by the
organization's CEO, with the firm's top public relations executive and legal counsel as his or her
chief advisers. Other team members should be the heads of major organization divisions, to
include finance, personnel and operations.
2. Identify Spokespersons: The decision about who should speak is made after a crisis breaks
— but the pool of potential spokespersons should be identified and trained in advance. Not only
are spokespersons needed for media communications, but for all types and forms of
communications, internal and external, including on camera, at a public meeting, at employee
meetings, etc.
3. Spokesperson: Training. Spokesperson training teaches you to be prepared, to be ready to
respond in a way that optimizes the response of all stakeholders.
4. Establish Notification Systems: the means to reach our internal and external stakeholders
using multiple modalities.
5. Identify and Know Your Stakeholders: Who are the internal and external stakeholders that
matter to your organization? Employees must be most important audience, because every
employee is a PR representative and crisis manager for your organization whether you want them
to be or not.
6. Anticipate Crises: There are two immediate benefits to this exercise: realize that some of the
situations are preventable by simply modifying existing methods of operation; begin to think
about possible responses, about best case/worst case scenarios, etc. There is a more formal
method of gathering this information - a ―vulnerability audit―.
7. Develop Holding Statements: While full message development must await the outbreak of an
actual crisis, ―holding statements―- messages designed for use immediately after a crisis breaks -
can be developed in advance to be used for a wide variety of scenarios to which the organization
is perceived to be vulnerable, based on the assessment you conducted in Step 6 of this process.
8. Assess the Crisis Situation: Assessing the crisis situation is, therefore, the first crisis
communications step you can't take in advance. But if you haven't prepared in advance, your
reaction will be delayed by the time it takes your in house staff or quickly-hired consultants to
run through steps 1 to 7. Furthermore, a hastily created crisis communications strategy and team
are never as efficient as those planned and rehearsed in advance.
Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance and Marketing, 3(2), 55-67, September 2011 62
9. Identify Key Messages: The team already knows, categorically, what type of information its
stakeholders are looking for. Have no more than three main messages for all stakeholders and, as
necessary, some audience-specific messages for individual groups of stakeholders.
10. Riding out the Storm: Some of your stakeholders are not going to react the way you want
them to. What do you do? Take an objective look at the reaction(s) in question. Is it your fault, or
their unique interpretation? Decide if another communication to those stakeholders is likely to
change their impression for the better. Decide if another communication to those stakeholders
could make the situation worse.
Segmented Communication Strategy for Effective Crisis communication
According to Zerman, (2004) masterly communications are: when we give to media the facts;
use the right Spokesperson; match the message and media to different segments; segment your
audience; select the most appropriate media. Audience segmentation is the basis of an Effective
Communication Strategy, identifies key market segments and unique concerns of each segment
and then speak to each in a suitable way and through a medium most likely to create high impact.
Luecke, (2007) describe the principle of audience segmentation (community leaders; employees;
customers and suppliers; shareholders; the general public) using segmentation to create a
systematic communication strategy (Table 1).
Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance and Marketing, 3(2), 55-67, September 2011 63
Table 1: Segmented Communications Strategy
(Source: Luecke, 2007; Valackiene,2010)
Figure 1: The Model of Crisis Communication Plan
(Source: Turney, 2007, Valackiene, 2010)
Segment
Key Cons-
-iderations
Employees Investors Customers
Suppliers Community
leaders
Regulators,
Government
agencies
KEY Messages Jobs in new
place;
Retraining
program
Full disclosure
of the change
Making
changes to
serve you
better;
Changes will
make the
company
stronger;
Changes will
make the
company
stronger;
Full disclosure
of the change
Full disclosure
of the change
Media Companywide
meet ing;
Letter to each
employee
Letter to
shareholders;
Webcast
Letter to all
purchasing
managers;
Industry trade
magazine
Letter to all;
Personal calls
to suppliers
Meeting with
community
leaders
Registered
letter
Timing Prior to press
conference;
Frequent
follow-up
Immediately Concurrent
with press
release
Immediately Prior to press
conference
Prior to press
conference
Spokes-person CEO CEO;
Investor
relation
VP of
market ing
Corporate
supply-chain
manager
CEO; CEO; Legal
counsel
Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance and Marketing, 3(2), 55-67, September 2011 64
According to Turney (2007), crisis planning is like buying insurance. Once you have decided to
buy insurance or to prepare a Crisis Communication plan, another sensible precaution is to
prepare for the worst case scenario. Be sure it meets your organization‘s needs. It will require
thoughtful analysis of your organization, its environment, and its available resources
Six Steps to Prepare an Effective Corporate Communication Plan at the moment of Crises
Step 1: Clearly state the Communication Team’s Mission in a crisis
Generally, the role of a communication unit in any organization at any time is to support and
advance the organization‘s mission, and a fundamental tenet of strategic planning is each
operating unit should have a unit-specific mission statement that is aligned with the
organization‘s mission. Remember, however, that communicators are not responsible for
resolving crises. That‘s management‘s job.
Step 2: Identify your organization’s most critical publics and themes to emphasize in
communicating with each of them
Many crisis communication plans target three to eight publics, but there‘s no „magic number―
right for everyone. Include whatever public best suit your organization‘s needs regardless of how
many this is.
Step 3.: Determine where crisis communication team members will be needed and the
location of any special operations centers
Depending on their size and management structure, many organizations will need crisis
communicators in multiple locations: Crisis site, Emergency operations center (EOC), Main
administrative offices of the organization, Public relations or communication offices, Crisis
communication center (CCC), Media center, Field offices, branch production facilities.
Step 4 Define task-related communication roles needed in a crisis
The number and variety of roles on a crisis communication team depend on the organization's
size, location(s), and type of business as well as the nature of the crisis. The roles: Crisis
manager liaison sits in on meetings of upper- level managers who make the decisions and direct
the operations intended to resolve the crisis and keeps the rest of the communication team
updated. Employee liaison keeps employees (and sometimes their families) fully informed of
what's happening. Spokesperson publicly announces all new developments, explains the
organization's positions, and handles all media interviews. Media facilitator assists reporters in
getting to/from the crisis site, arranges interviews, provides background information, etc.
Investor & financial community liaison may be needed by a publicly- traded company especially
if its stock price is volatile or its financial future is uncertain. Writer/researcher/fact checker
assists the spokesperson and media facilitator in gathering and preparing information for release.
Call and e-mail screeners review and appropriately route crisis-related messages that come in to
the public relations office, emergency phone lines or e-mail addresses, and the main switchboard.
Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance and Marketing, 3(2), 55-67, September 2011 65
On-site monitor at the actual crisis scene observes and reports developments for the crisis
manager liaison and the spokesperson.
Step 5 Prepare a crisis communication team roster showing your „starting line -up“ with
contact information
Then identify specific people who can fill each position, but do so knowing that there will
.probably not be enough communication staff to cover all of them. It may be necessary to borrow
additional staff from other departments or make arrangements for outside assistance.
Step 6 Don't wait until a crisis to disseminate the plan.
It won‘t be much help unless those who need to use it are familiar with it and have it instantly
accessible. Everyone listed in the plan should have copies of it as well as having additional fact
sheets and contact lists relevant to their specific assignments
Conclusions
The understanding of Corporate Communication is focused on two methodological aspects: to
describe the relation of social environment and business expression – management of corporate
communication system and maintenance of company‗s business strategy – implementation of
practical decisions. According to the first methodological aspect, this understanding explores the
integration of Corporate and Marketing Communication in tomorrow's company, and discusses a
model of the Corporate Communication system of managing. According to the second
methodological aspect, it is necessary to explore the case for, and value of, Corporate
Communication practice in professional development. According to that conceptual paradigm
the Corporate Communication offers strategic management functions. Depending on the
organization, Corporate Communication includes: public relations; crisis and emergency
communication; corporate citizenship; reputation management; community relations; media
relations; investor relations; employee relations; government relations; marketing
communication; management communication; corporate branding and image building;
advertising. Generalizing and conceptually basing it can be claimed that successful professional
development of the next generation of Corporate Communication executives will focus on
understanding of Corporate Communication functions and on strategic implementation
capabilities. A conceptual paradigm of the phenomenon under discussion is applied: Crisis
Planning and Management Strategy within the business environment are analyzed, In crisis
planning process discussions and future perspectives are essential. In order to be able to
strategically manage the crisis situations within business environment, it is essential to talk about
the process of crisis planning, as well as strategy management within the organization. To
achieve that an adequate training of staff is necessary, in addition to that the analysis of the
situation and search for alternative solutions are required. To be able to properly get prepared for
a Crisis Planning and Strategy Management processes, Crisis Management requires collaboration
with systems, efficient internal and external communication, setting the persons and their roles
expressed by special duties and responsibilities, effective collective decision making, control and
collaboration responsibility. Another important element is the managers‘ ability to communicate
with the media representatives in crisis situations. The managers have to be prepared what to say,
ho w to present information in order not to damage the company‘s reputation.
Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance and Marketing, 3(2), 55-67, September 2011 66
The most viable methodological approach in the cognition of Crisis Communication is systems
approach. Theoretical studies and practical research of Corporate Communication Institute
shows, that Communication and Mastering of the Media is an important tool for every crisis
handler and in each active stage of crisis management: contingency planning, containment, and
resolution. It is importance as an instrument of control and coordination. Audience segmentation
is the basis of an Effective Communication strategy. The Model of Crisis Communication Plan
emphasizes the six stages of preparation: the mission of organization; the stakeholders of
organization; the specialists of communication and the place of special operations center; the role
of crisis communication team; the composition of crisis communication team; the control of
crisis communication plan.
References
Anikin, A. (2008). Economic Dynamic and the Theory of Steady Growth. International Journal
of Economic Theory, (4), 207 - 246.
Ben-Yair, A., Golenko-Ginzburg, D., Laslo, Z. (2007). Multi-parametrical harmonization models
in strategic management. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 8(3), 169 -
176.
Bernstein, J., (2004). The 10 Steps of Crisis Communications. Crisis Response, prevention,
planning and, Training, 106.
Corporate Communication Institute (2005) Study. Communication Practices and Trends,
available at: [www.corporatecomm.org/studies].
Deetz, S. (1992). Democraty in an Age of Corporate Colonization: Development in
Communication and the Politics of Everyday Life. State University of New York Press,
94.
Goodman, M. (2004). Special Issue on Public Diplomacy. Journal of Business Strategy, (6), 65-
74.
Goodman, M. (2006). Corporate Communication Practice and Pedagogy at the dawn of New
Millenium. Corporate Communication. An International Journal, 11 (3), 196-213.
Grunig, J.E. (2000). Collectivism, collaboration, and societal corporatism as core professional
values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1):23-49.
Heath, R., (1994) Management of Corporate Communication: from interpersonal Contact to
External Affairs, LAWRENCE Eribaum Associates, Hillsdate, NL, 97.
Kaplinski, O. (2008). Planning Instruments in Construction Management. Technological and
Economic Development of Economy, 14(4), 449 - 451.
Kitchen, P. (1997). Was Public Relations e Prelude to Corporate Communications?
Communications, 2, (1), 22-30.
Klein, J. (1981) Economical Features in the Academy a Liberal Hegemony. Journal of
Organization and Markets, (8), 15-24.
Lauzen, M M (1995) Public relations manager involvement in strategic issue diagnosis, Public
Relations Review, vol. 21, 287-304
Luecke, R. (2007). Crisis Management Master the Skills to prevent Disasters Mastering the
Media. Harvard BusinessSchool Press, 207.
Markovic, M., (2008). Managing the Organizational Change and Culture in the Age of
Globalization. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 9(1), 3-11.
Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance and Marketing, 3(2), 55-67, September 2011 67
Rosenblatt, Z. (2002). Effects of Crisis – Triggered Demographic Depletion on Organizational
Change: Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, (10), 26-38.
Schoemaker, P. (1993). Multiple Scenario Development: its Conceptual and Behavioral
Foundation. Strategic Management Journal, (14), 193- 201.
Sheaffer, Z., Mano-Negrin R. (2004). Are Women cooler' than men during Crises? Exploring
Gender Differences in Perceiving Organizational Crisis preparedness-proneness. Women
in Management Review. 19(2), 109-122,
Steyn, B. (2003). From Strategy to Corporate Communication Strategy: a Conceptualization.
Journal of Communication Management, 8 (2), 168-84.
Turney, M., L., (2004). Six Steps to Preparing a Rudimentary Crisis Communication Plan, 29.
Valackiene, A. (2009). Theoretical Model of Employee Social Identification in Organization
Managing Crisis Situations. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, (4), 95 -102.
Valackiene, A., Krasenkiene, A., Demeniene, A. (2009). Conceptualization of Crisis Planning
and Management Strategy in Business Environment. Changes in Social and Business
Environment : Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference, 463-468.
Varey, R., White, J. (2000). The Corporate Communication System of Managing. Corporate
Communications. AnInternational Journal, 5(1), 5-11.
Virbickaite, R. (2009). Įmonės krizinės situacijos diagnozavimas. Daktaro disertacija, 133.
White, M. (1989). Bankruptcy Liquidation and Reorganization: Handbook of Modern Finance.
Harvard Business Review, 1-25.
Zerman, D. (2004). Crisis Communication: Managing the Mass Media. Knowing how to
Communicate, 93-10
Copyright of Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance & Marketing is the property of
Global Strategic Management, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.
Week 5 Assignment Resources/Restoring reputations in times of crisis
Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 256–262
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
Restoring reputations in times of crisis: An experimental study of the
Situational Crisis Communication Theory and the moderating effects of
locus of control
An-Sofie Claeys ∗, Verolien Cauberghe1, Patrick Vyncke2
Universiteit Gent, Korte Meer 7-11, 9000 Gent, Belgium
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 17 December 2009
Received in revised form 19 April 2010
Accepted 20 May 2010
Keywords:
Crisis communication
Corporate reputation
Crisis responsibility
Crisis response strategy
Locus of control
a b s t r a c t
This study attempts to provide empirical evidence for Coombs’ (2007) Situational Crisis
Communication Theory (SCCT), which provides guidelines for matching crisis response
strategies to crisis types to best restore organizational reputations in times of crisis. The
impact of crisis type and crisis response strategies on perceptions of corporate reputation is
measured for 316 consumers participating in a 3 (crisis type: victim crisis, accidental crisis,
preventable crisis) × 3 (crisis response: deny strategy, diminish strategy, rebuild strategy)
between-subjects experimental design. The results show that preventable crises have the
most negative effects on organizational reputation and that the rebuild strategy leads to
the most positive reputational restoration. Moreover, the more severe people judge a crisis
to be, the more negative are their perceptions of the organization’s reputation. The inter-
action effect between crisis type and crisis response strategies on corporate reputation is
not significant. However, a person’s locus of control has a moderating impact on the rela-
tionship between crisis response strategy and organizational reputation. Specifically, the
results show that people with an external locus of control prefer the use of deny strategies
more than people with an internal locus of control.
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) was developed recently to investigate which crisis response strategy
managers should apply in specific crisis situations to restore an organization’s reputation in the best possible way (Coombs,
2007). This is essential, considering that no organization is spared having to go through crises during its lifetime (Spillan,
2003). These crises challenge organizational reputations and credibility (Arpan, 2002; Weiner, 2006). Prior research has rarely
applied experimental, quantitative designs to investigate the topic of crisis response strategies (Benoit, 1995). Therefore,
the main goal of this study is to test the matches between crisis types and crisis response strategies, as recommended by
the SCCT, using a between-subjects 3 × 3 factorial experimental design.
Until now, research on crisis communication has paid little attention to the moderating role of personality traits that
may affect respondents’ reactions either to a crisis or to the crisis response strategy used to manage the crisis (Coombs,
2007). Therefore, the current study investigates the moderating influence of locus of control—a personality trait that refers
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 494 26 69 32.
E-mail addresses: ansofie.claeys@ugent.be (A.-S. Claeys), verolien.cauberghe@ugent.be (V. Cauberghe), patrick.vyncke@ugent.be (P. Vyncke).
1 Tel.: +32 472 23 07 87.
2 Tel.: +32 09 264 68 91.
0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.05.004
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.05.004
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03638111
mailto:ansofie.claeys@ugent.be
mailto:verolien.cauberghe@ugent.be
mailto:patrick.vyncke@ugent.be
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.05.004
A.-S. Claeys et al. / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 256–262 257
Table 1
Match between crisis types and crisis response strategies.
Crisis types Crisis response strategies
Victim cluster Deny strategies
Natural disaster Attack the accuser
Rumor Denial
Workplace violence Scapegoat
Product tampering/Malevolence
Accidental cluster Diminish strategies
Challenges Excuse
Technical-error accidents Justification
Technical-error product harm
Preventable cluster Rebuild strategies
Human-error accidents Compensation
Human-error product harm Apology
Organizational misdeed with no injuries
Organizational misdeed management misconduct
Organizational misdeed with injuries
Source: adapted from: Coombs (2007), p. 168 and 170.
to the attributions that people make for behavioural consequences and reinforcements (Duffy, Downey, & Shiflett, 1977).
A person’s locus of control may influence the value he or she places on either internal or external control in organizational
crisis responses (Rotter, 1966). Because crisis response strategies differ in the way they attempt to convince an audience
that a crisis is attributed to either internal or external factors, it stands to reason that people with an internal locus of control
prefer the use of different crisis response strategies than people with an external locus of control.
In what follows, we present a theoretical overview and develop the hypotheses. Then, we discuss the method of the
experiment and the results.
2. The SCCT
The SCCT divides crisis types into three crisis clusters (Coombs, 2007; Coombs & Holladay, 2002). The victim cluster is
defined as crises with weak attributions of organizational responsibility. The accidental cluster involves crises in which a
certain, but low, level of responsibility are attributed to the organization. The preventable cluster includes crises for which
the organization is perceived as being responsible (see Table 1).
The more responsibility that is attributed to the organization with respect to the crisis, the more negative is the impact
on the organizational reputation (Coombs, 1998). Therefore, different types of crisis inflict different amounts of reputational
damage. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1. The victim crisis leads to a less negative effect on organizational reputation than the accidental or preventable crisis. The
accidental crisis leads to a moderately negative effect on organizational reputation compared with the victim or preventable
crisis. The preventable crisis leads to the most negative impact on organizational reputation compared with the victim or
accidental crisis.
Within the range of response strategies, several clusters have also been detected (Coombs, 2004, 2007; Huang, Lin, & Su,
2005) (see Table 1). Deny strategies claim that no crisis exists (denial) or declare that the organization has no responsibility for
it (scapegoat) (Coombs, 2007). Diminish strategies argue that a crisis is not as serious as people think (justification) or minimize
organizational responsibility (excuse). Rebuild crisis strategies offer compensation for the crisis or apologize. Research has
shown that offering an apology—a rebuild crisis response strategy—leads to more effective reputation restoration than the
more defensive deny or diminish response strategies (Coombs & Holladay, 2008). Thus:
H2. The reputation of an organization using rebuild crisis response strategies is more positive than the reputation of an
organization using either deny or diminish crisis response strategies.
The reputational threat is determined by the crisis type, which is defined in terms of the perceived responsibility attributed
to the organization (Coombs, 2004, 2007). This idea is based on attribution theory (Coombs, 2007). Crisis managers should
select crisis response strategies that are appropriate for the potential extent of reputational damage a certain crisis may inflict
(Coombs & Holladay, 2002). In an experimental study, Coombs and Holladay (1996) find that when crisis communication
responses match the crisis type in terms of responsibility attribution, this leads to a more positive reputation perception than
either no response or a mismatched response. Their research finds that organizational reputation benefits when diminish
strategies are used in response to accidental crises and when rebuild strategies are matched with preventable crises.
Previous research has examined the match between crisis type and a single crisis response strategy (Coombs & Holladay,
1996). However, Benoit (1997) suggests that the use of a combination of strategies can increase the effectiveness of image
restoration. The SCCT advises crisis managers to combine crisis response strategies from the same cluster (Coombs, 2007).
In line with the SCCT, the best option appears to be a combination of several strategies from the same response cluster into
258 A.-S. Claeys et al. / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 256–262
a crisis response, depending on the crisis type. On the basis of previous SCCT-related research, we expect deny strategies to
match with victim crises, diminish strategies to match with accidental crises, and rebuild strategies to match with preventable
crises (Coombs, 2007). Thus:
H3. Matching crisis type and crisis response strategy leads to a less negative effect on organizational reputation than
mismatches between crisis type and crisis response strategy.
Although Coombs (1998) has not been able to empirically prove that the severity of a crisis has an incrementally negative
effect on reputational damage, the author asserts the likelihood that more severe crises indeed have a greater negative
impact on organizational reputation than crises that lead to trivial damage (Coombs, 1998; Coombs & Holladay, 2002).
Coombs (1998) tests his assumption by operationalizing crisis severity as the amount of property damage and seriousness
of related injuries. An alternative to this approach would be simply to use perceived crisis severity. Therefore, we use the
latter operationalization in the current study, which may help further uncover the impact of crisis severity on reputational
damage.
H4. The greater the perceived severity of a crisis, the greater is the negative impact on organizational reputation.
3. Moderating influence of locus of control
A theory that informs the SCCT is attribution theory, which focuses on the causal inferences people make (Coombs &
Holladay, 1996; Folkes, 1988). Organizations in crisis situations attempt to influence these causal inferences by using certain
crisis response strategies. Most research has focused on environmental factors that lead an observer to make internal and
external attributions about behaviour (Collins, 1974). However, little research has been conducted on observer characteristics
that might affect causal attribution.
According to Collins (1974), many of the conclusions an observer reaches are influenced more by the observer him- or
herself than by the external stimulus, which is represented herein as the organization. One of these important personality
traits is locus of control. People believe that events are controlled either by internal, personal forces of the actor or by external,
situational forces of the environment (Lefcourt, 1966). For example, when a student has bad test results, he or she might
think either that the teacher asked the wrong questions (external locus of control) or that he or she did not study enough
(internal locus of control). Rotter (1966) states that although a person’s locus of control is not immediately connected to a
preference for internal or external control in others, it may be correlated with the value the person places on either internal
or external control.
If locus of control implies the preference for internality or externality, various strategies will be more or less preferred
by internally versus externally focused people. For example, internally focused people would be likely to assign more value
to organizations that take full responsibility for their own actions (rebuild strategies), a response indicating that the firm
controls its own actions. Likewise, externally focused people would assign more value than internally focused people to
organizations that reject responsibility for what happened (deny strategies), a response indicating that the firm believes
that the environment controlled what happened more than the actions of the organization itself. Because diminish strategies
are somewhere in between in terms of taking responsibility, we posit that such strategies are equally preferred by both
externally and internally focused people. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H5a. When an organization uses deny strategies, people with an external locus of control perceive the firm’s reputation in
a more positive light than people with an internal locus of control.
H5b. When an organization uses diminish strategies, people with an external locus of control and those with an internal
locus of control have similar perceptions of the firm’s reputation.
H5c. When an organization uses rebuild strategies, people with an internal locus of control perceive the firm’s reputation
in a more positive light than people with an external locus of control.
4. Methods
4.1. Design and stimuli
We used a 3 (crisis type) × 3 (crisis response) between-subjects factorial experimental design to investigate the hypothe-
ses. We manipulated crisis type and crisis response strategy using various scenarios.
More specifically, we manipulated crisis type by the selection of one crisis from each of the three clusters (victim cluster,
accidental cluster, preventable cluster). We chose the crisis types on the basis of a practical consideration—namely, being
able to describe each crisis type realistically. From the victim cluster, we selected product tampering (Coombs, 2007; Coombs
& Holladay, 2002). From the accidental cluster, we used technical-error product harm. From the preventable cluster, we chose
organizational misdeed with injuries. We used a fictitious organization in the three scenarios to avoid potential confounding
effects of pre-existing knowledge. We held the objective crisis damage stable in all situations, namely, by mentioning the
death of two adults.
A.-S. Claeys et al. / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 256–262 259
To manipulate the response strategy, two strategies were selected from each cluster. From the diminish cluster, we
combined excuse and justification into one reaction (Coombs, 2007). From the rebuild cluster, we combined compensation
and apology. We used only one crisis response strategy from the deny cluster because all three deny strategies tend to
conflict. Combining strategies will only enhance their individual impacts when the responses are compatible (Huang, 2006).
Therefore, we describe the scapegoat reaction for the deny scenario.
4.2. Participants and procedure
We conducted two pre-tests to ensure that the manipulations were effective. For the actual study, we collected data
from 316 respondents using an online questionnaire. We randomly divided the respondents across the nine conditions and
instructed them to read a scenario containing a combination of a crisis type with a crisis response. After reading the scenario,
respondents filled in the questionnaire. Participants were Dutch-speaking Belgian men and women with an average age of
35 years (SD = 14.46; range = 13–70 years). Approximately 47% were male, and 53% were female.
4.3. Measures
We measured organizational responsibility for a crisis using the four-item 10-point Likert scale from the work of Griffin et
al. (1992) (e.g., “How responsible was the organization with respect to the crisis?”) (˛ = .81).
We measured organizational reputation with a combination of the Reputation Quotient scale from the work of Fombrun,
Gardberg, and Sever (2000) and McCroskey’s (cited in Coombs & Holladay, 1996) scale of credibility (˛ = .97).
We held crisis damage constant across scenarios by telling respondents that each crisis caused the death of two adults.
To measure the possible effects of the perceived crisis severity, respondents answered one question on a 10-point scale,
ranging from 1 (not at all severe) to 10 (very severe): “How severe do you consider the damage caused by this crisis?”
We measured locus of control using Rotter’s (1966) internal–external (I–E) locus-of-control scale. The I–E scale has a
Cronbach’s ˛ of .73 and consists of nine factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The two factors with the highest eigenvalues
were labelled control over politics and misfortunes, and together they explained 23% of the total variance. The control-over-
politics dimension considers the perceived control a person can have over politics. The misfortunes dimension considers the
perceived causes of peoples’ misfortunes. Because the I–E scale has been shown to oversimplify the multidimensionality of
the locus-of-control construct, these two dimensions were also taken separately into analyses (Duffy et al., 1977).
5. Pre-tests
We conducted two pre-tests to test the manipulated variables crisis response and crisis type.
5.1. Pre-test 1
Twelve respondents participated in an order task to check the internal validity of the crisis responses. The respondents
were instructed to read each of the three crisis response scenarios and then to order them based on a list containing all
five-crisis response strategies. Some neutral sentences were mistakenly interpreted as strategies. We removed these lines
from the crisis responses used in the main experiment.
5.2. Pre-test 2
According to the SCCT typology (Coombs, 2007; Coombs & Holladay, 2002), we can manipulate crisis types through
the assessment of crisis responsibility. Therefore, the second pre-test assessed (with a seven-point scale) the manipulation
of corporate responsibility for each crisis type. Twenty-one respondents participated. The questionnaire used a within-
subjects design, and all respondents saw the three crisis types. The results show that in the victim crisis (M = 4.31, SD = 1.49),
respondents perceived the company as less responsible than in the accidental crisis (M = 5.31, SD = .98; t(40) = 2.56, p = .015)
and the preventable crisis (M = 5.79, SD = 1.01; t(40) = 3.75, p = .001). However, there were no significant differences between
the accidental crisis (M = 5.31, SD = .98) and the preventable crisis (M = 5.79, SD = 1.01; t(40) = 1.55, p = .13). We adapted all
scenarios for the main study on the basis of these results.
6. Results
6.1. Manipulation checks
We performed a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to check for the manipulation of crisis type, measured by the
amount of crisis responsibility. The mean difference in crisis responsibility among the three crisis types is significant (F(2,
313) = 82.93, p < .001). The Scheffé follow-up procedure shows that the victim crisis (M = 4.78, SD = 2.11) results in signifi-
cantly lower attributions of responsibility to the organization than the accidental crisis (M = 6.81, SD = 1.87, p < .001) and the
260 A.-S. Claeys et al. / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 256–262
Fig. 1. Interaction between crisis response cluster and crisis cluster.
preventable crisis (M = 8.07, SD = 1.62, p < .001). Furthermore, the accidental crisis results in significantly lower attributions
of crisis responsibility than the preventable crisis (MAccidental crisis = 6.81, SD = 1.87; MPreventable crisis = 8.07, SD = 1.62, p < .001).
6.2. Impact of crisis type and response strategy on reputation
To address the main effects of crisis types (H1) and response strategies (H2) on organizational reputation and to test the
interaction effect of crisis type and crisis response strategies predicted in H3, we use a univariate two-way ANOVA (general
linear model). Two main effects occur. Both crisis type (F(8, 307) = 94.72, p < .001) and crisis response strategy (F(8, 307) = 4.68,
p = .01) have a significant main effect on organizational reputation (see Fig. 1). To detect the significant differences between
the three conditions of crisis type and crisis response pairwise, we also conduct separate one-way ANOVA’s with Scheffé
follow-up tests. This enables us to assess H1 and H2.
The results of a separate one-way ANOVA (F(2, 313) = 95.33, p < .001) show that respondents perceive the organization’s
reputation less favourably in the case of a preventable crisis (M = 2.72, SD = 1.42) than in the cases of both the victim crisis
(M = 5.95, SD = 1.97, p < .001) and the accidental crisis (M = 5.48, SD = 2.04, p < .001). No significant difference in reputation
occurs between the victim crisis (M = 5.95, SD = 1.97) and the accidental crisis (M = 5.48, SD = 2.04, p = .18). These results
partially support H1. Preventable crises, in which the organization is responsible for a crisis, have the most negative impact
on organizational reputation.
The findings also confirm the main effect of crisis response strategy on organizational reputation (F(2, 313) = 4.52, p = .012).
The Scheffé procedure reveals that rebuild strategies (M = 5.26, SD = 2.36) significantly lead to a more positive reputation
than diminish strategies (M = 4.35, SD = 2.24, p = .018). The difference between the rebuild strategies and the deny strategies
is only marginally significant (p < .1; MRebuild strategies = 5.26, SD = 2.36; MDeny strategies = 4.57, SD = 2.28, p = .087). Therefore, H2
is partially supported. Respondents assess the reputation of organizations using rebuild strategies (i.e., when firms accept
responsibility) more positively than the reputation of organizations using diminish strategies (i.e., when organizational
responsibility is minimized).
The interaction effect of crisis type and crisis response strategies on reputation is not significant (F(8, 307) = 1.28, p = .28).
Therefore, H3 is not supported. Crisis responses that are matched to crisis type, in accordance with the SCCT recommendation,
do not differ in their impact on organizational reputation compared with mismatched responses.
To investigate the impact of the perceived severity of the crisis on organizational reputation, we calculate a correla-
tion coefficient. There is a significant, negative correlation between the severity of the crisis and organizational reputation
(r(314) = −.12, p = .034). These results show that the more severe respondents perceive a crisis to be, the worse the reputation
of the organization confronted with the crisis will be, in support of H4.
6.3. Moderating influence of locus of control
We tested H5a to H5c with a univariate two-way ANOVA (general linear model). A significant interaction effect occurred
between crisis response strategy and one of the factors in the locus-of-control scale—namely, misfortunes (F(5, 310) = 3.82,
p = .023). The plot in Fig. 2 shows that when a company uses a deny response strategy, its reputation is perceived more
positively by respondents with an external locus of control (M = 5.30, SD = 2.15) than by respondents with an internal locus
of control (M = 3.90, SD = 2.20; t(105) = 3.33, p = .001). Therefore, H5a is supported. However, when an organization uses
diminish strategies, its reputation is perceived as equally positive by both externally focused respondents (M = 4.27, SD = 1.91)
A.-S. Claeys et al. / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 256–262 261
Fig. 2. Interaction between crisis response cluster and locus of control factor.
and internally focused respondents (M = 4.44, SD = 2.53; t(99) = .38, p = .70), in support of H5b. We do not find support for
H5c—rebuild strategies do not lead to a less negative reputation for respondents with an internal locus of control compared
with respondents with an external locus of control. The other dimensions of locus of control do not offer significant results.
7. Conclusions and discussion
The SCCT advises communication managers to select crisis response strategies that match the specific crisis type (Coombs
& Holladay, 2002). However, matching crisis types and crisis responses does not lead to more positive perception of firm
reputation than mismatches. This contradicts Coombs and Holladay’s (1996) findings. An explanation for this might be the
difference in methodology. Coombs and Holladay (1996) use a within-subjects design, whereas we use a between-subjects
design. Another explanation may be that we combine two response strategies into one response, whereas Coombs and
Holladay (1996) only use one strategy.
However, we find two main effects for crisis type and crisis response in relation to organizational reputation. First,
corporate reputation is least favourable when organizations are confronted with a preventable crisis. In this type of crisis,
companies are considered responsible for the crisis (Coombs, 2007; Coombs & Holladay, 2002). We find no significant
difference in reputational perceptions between the accidental crisis and the victim crisis. Second, there is a main effect
of crisis response strategy on organizational reputation. Specifically, the reputations of organizations using rebuild crisis
response strategies are more positive than the reputations of organizations using diminish strategies. The results also provide
evidence for the relationship between the perceived severity of the crisis and organizational reputation, confirming Coombs
and Holladay’s (2002) assumption. Specifically, the more severe people perceive a crisis to be, the more negative are there
perceptions of the organization’s reputation.
Locus of control (more specifically, the misfortunes factor) as a personality trait has a moderating impact on the effect of
response strategy on reputation. For the deny strategy, respondents with an external locus of control perceive the corporate
reputation more positively than respondents with an internal locus of control. Because diminish strategies attempt to take
on some of the responsibility, while minimizing part of it, such strategies lead to similar results for both internally focused
respondents and externally focused respondents. However, contrary to our expectations, respondents with an external locus
of control do not prefer the use of rebuild strategies less than those with an internal locus of control. Further research is
needed to explore this unexpected result.
8. Limitations and further research
The limitations of the current study provide some possibilities for further research. First, we measured reputation after
only one exposure to a fictitious company. Therefore, it can be argued that the reputation measure resembles more of an
attitude rather than a reputation developed over time. Second, our use of the I–E locus-of-control scale might be questioned.
Despite its popularity, there has been evidence that it may oversimplify the actual dimensionality of the construct (Duffy et
al., 1977). Third, the current study does not incorporate a condition in which the company does not react to the crisis. This
would be worthwhile to measure in further research to detect the impact of a company’s reaction to a crisis versus a situation
in which a company does not react in any way. Fourth, we based the selection of respondents on a convenience sample.
Further research should use a more systematic procedure to select the respondents. In addition, the number of respondents
could be increased. Fifth, further research should investigate whether there are different personality traits that influence
the impact of crisis response strategies. Finally, the current study compared the impact of matching response strategies
262 A.-S. Claeys et al. / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 256–262
and crisis types across the different clusters of each. It would be worthwhile to examine the impact of each of the different
strategies within each cluster.
References
Arpan, L. M. (2002). When in Rome? The effects of spokesperson ethnicity on audience evaluation of crisis communication. Journal of Business Communication,
39(3), 314–340.
Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23(2), 177–186.
Collins, B. E. (1974). Four components of the Rotter internal–external scale: Belief in a difficult world, a just world, a predictable world, and a politically
responsive world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 381–391.
Coombs, W. T. (1998). An analytic framework for crisis situations: Better responses from a better understanding of the situation. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 10(3), 177–191.
Coombs, W. T. (2004). West Pharmaceutical’s explosion: Structuring crisis discourse knowledge. Public Relations Review, 30(4), 467–473.
Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory.
Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–176.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experimental study in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 8(4), 279–295.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: Initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory.
Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 165–186.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2008). Comparing apology to equivalent crisis response strategies: Clarifying apology’s role and value in crisis communi-
cation. Public Relations Review, 34(3), 252–257.
Duffy, P. J., Downey, R. G., & Shiflett, S. (1977). Locus of control: Dimensionality and predictability using Likert scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2),
214–219.
Folkes, V. S. (1988). Recent attribution research in consumer behavior: A review and new directions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 548–565.
Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., & Sever, J. M. (2000). The reputation quotient sm: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand
Management, 7(4), 241–255.
Griffin, M., Babin, B. J., & Darden, W. R. (1992). Consumer assessments of responsibility for product-related injuries: The impact of regulations, warnings,
and promotional policies. In J. F. Sherry, & B. Brian Sternthal@@Jr. (Eds.), Advances in consumer research, vol. 19 (pp. 870–878). Provo, UT: Association
for Consumer Research.
Huang, Y. (2006). Crisis situations, communication strategies, and media coverage: A multicase study revisiting the communicative response model.
Communication Research, 33(3), 180–205.
Huang, Y., Lin, Y., & Su, S. (2005). Crisis communicative strategies in Taiwan: Category, continuum, and cultural implication. Public Relations Review, 31(2),
229–238.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1966). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 65(4), 206–220.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1–27.
Spillan, J. E. (2003). An exploratory model for evaluating crisis events and managers’ concerns in non-profit organizations. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, 11(4), 160–169.
Weiner, D. (2006). Crisis communications: Managing corporate reputation in the court of public opinion. Ivey Business Journal, 70(4), 1–6.
Restoring reputations in times of crisis: An experimental study of the Situational Crisis Communication Theory and the moderating effects of locus of control
Introduction
The SCCT
Moderating influence of locus of control
Methods
Design and stimuli
Participants and procedure
Measures
Pre-tests
Pre-test 1
Pre-test 2
Results
Manipulation checks
Impact of crisis type and response strategy on reputation
Moderating influence of locus of control
Conclusions and discussion
Limitations and further research
References
Week 5 Assignment Resources/The value of communication during a crisis
The value of communication during a crisis:
Insights from strategic communication
research
W. Timothy Coombs
Nicholson School of Communication, University of Central Florida, P.O. Box 161344, Orlando,
FL 32816-1344, U.S.A.
Business Horizons (2015) 58, 141—148
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor
KEYWORDS
Crisis communication;
Evidence-based;
Crisis response
strategies;
Crisis
Abstract The field of strategic communication encompasses a burgeoning crisis
communication literature that seeks to identify effective and ineffective
crisis communication efforts. Strategic communication has identified an array of
crisis response strategies and the factors that determine when these response options
are effective or ineffective. This article extracts key lessons from the crisis commu-
nication research to develop a set of guidelines managers can use to inform their
crisis communication efforts. The analysis includes an examination of the crisis
response strategies and their desired outcomes, the timing of crisis responses, and
the situational factors that have proven to affect the effectiveness of crisis response
strategies. The research results provide the foundation for evidence-based crisis
communication. The guidelines help managers to understand how their communica-
tive choices will impact the corporate reputation and other important crisis out-
comes, and will help managers to make informed choices about crisis communication.
# 2014 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All
rights reserved.
1. Crisis communication
On July 6, 2013, a Canadian Pacific Railway locomo-
tive carrying crude oil derailed in Lac-Mégantic,
Quebec, Canada. The ensuing explosions and fires
resulted in 42 deaths, five people missing and pre-
sumed dead, and evacuation of the town. Edward
Burkhardt, the CEO of parent company Rail World
E-mail address: timothy.coombs@ucf.edu
0007-6813/$ — see front matter # 2014 Kelley School of Business, I
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.003
Inc., proved a key point about crisis communication:
just because you communicate during a crisis does
not mean you necessarily make the situation better.
In fact, a leading business journal noted that
Burkhardt’s coping tactics made the situation worse
for the organization. Crisis communication should
be strategic; efforts should be designed to improve
the situation for stakeholders and the firm in crisis.
What was Burkhardt’s Achilles heel? As this article
will demonstrate, the problem was ineffective crisis
communication.
ndiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.003&domain=pdf
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.003&domain=pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.003
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00076813
mailto:timothy.coombs@ucf.edu
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.003
142 W.T. Coombs
I will resist use of the label ‘best practices’ for
crisis communication. Best practices implies bench-
marking and uniformity in a process. While we can
identify crisis types and similarities between crises,
it is misleading to assume uniformity. Each crisis has
the potential to create unique communication de-
mands. What we can identify are lessons from the
strategic communication analyses of crisis that pro-
duce consistent results. The evidence-based crisis
communication research provides guidance regard-
ing what is typically effective and ineffective in a
crisis. As a whole, this guidance can help crisis
managers make informed decisions about the stra-
tegic use of communication during their own crises.
The explication of evidence-based crisis commu-
nication will begin with an examination of basic crisis
response strategies, move on to a discussion of crisis
communication outcomes, and end with consider-
ation of how various situational factors affect the
effectiveness of basic crisis response strategies. This
final section reviews primary lessons derived from the
strategic crisis communication research.
2. Crisis response strategies
Crisis response strategies represent the words and
actions managers employ in dealing with crises
(Coombs, 2007). We can view crisis response strate-
gies as the options crisis managers have available to
them when responding to a crisis. The strength of
the strategic communication approach to crisis com-
munication is the explication of crisis response
strategies. Crisis response strategies are only part
of the larger fabric of crisis communication. Broadly,
there are two strategies for crisis communication:
(1) managing information and (2) managing mean-
ing. Managing information involves the collection
and dissemination of crisis-related information.
Managing meaning involves efforts to influence
how people perceive the crisis and/or the organiza-
tion involved in the crisis (Coombs, 2010). Crisis
response strategies are primarily about managing
meaning. Hence, the discussion of crisis response
strategies must consider the effects the crisis re-
sponse strategies are intended to have upon stake-
holder perceptions of the crisis situation. Crisis
response strategies can be divided into three cate-
gories: instructing information, adjusting informa-
tion, and reputation repair.
2.1. Instructing information
Instructing information helps stakeholders to pro-
tect themselves physically from a crisis. Crises cre-
ate a unique set of stakeholders: victims that are
negatively affected by the crisis. Instructing infor-
mation prevents stakeholders from becoming vic-
tims (Sturges, 1994) by warning people to evacuate,
to not use a product, or to shelter-in-place. The
strategic objective is public safety.
2.2. Adjusting information
Adjusting information includes efforts to help stake-
holders cope psychologically with a crisis (Sturges,
1994). Expressions of sympathy, information about
the crisis event, counseling, and corrective action
are all variations of adjusting information. Crises
can create anxiety (Jin & Pang, 2010) and anger
(Coombs & Holladay, 2005). Information about the
crisis event reduces anxiety by reducing ambiguity.
Corrective action helps stakeholders by explaining
how the organization is working to reduce the like-
lihood of a repeat of the crisis. Expressions of
sympathy help to reduce anger while counseling
helps with extreme anxiety.
2.3. Reputation repair
Reputation repair seeks to reduce the negative
effects a crisis has on the organization’s reputation
and related assets. Reputation repair strategies can
be organized into four groups: (1) denial, (2) reduc-
ing offensiveness, (3) bolstering, and (4) redress.
Each strategy offers a slightly different means for
reputation repair.
2.3.1. Denial
Denial seeks to sever any connection between the
organization and the crisis, with the objective of
establishing no responsibility. Simple denial argues
that the organization is not involved in a crisis and
that misperception links the two. An example would
be a rumor (untrue information) about a crisis or
confusing the organization with a similar firm that is
experiencing a crisis. A scapegoating strategy seeks
to shift the blame to another actor; here, the
organization is connected to the crisis but lays fault
upon another entity. Either way, if the organization
is not responsible for a crisis, the crisis should not
damage the organization (Benoit, 1995; Coombs,
1995). Less damage is inflicted on an organization
if people believe the organization is not connected
to the crisis.
It is important to note a critical caveat of the
denial strategy. If an organization uses denial and
then later is found to bear some responsibility for
the crisis, damage inflicted upon the organization is
intensified. Hence, manager should avoid using de-
nial if they are at all unsure about the organization’s
true culpability. Moreover, stakeholders generally
The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from strategic communication research 143
have a negative view of the scapegoating strategy.
Stakeholders want organizations to take responsi-
bility rather than try to pass the buck. Consider
when a crisis is caused by a supplier. The company
whose name is on the product is expected to take
ultimate responsibility and not pass that responsi-
bility down the supply chain. For example, when
Mattel attempted to blame the use of lead paint in
its toys on a supplier, customers reacted negatively.
Because stakeholders assume Mattel should be re-
sponsible for its final products, they wanted the
company to take responsibility for the ensuing recall
and crisis.
2.3.2. Reducing offensiveness
Reducing offensiveness strategies acknowledge an
organization bears some responsibility for the crisis.
However, the organization claims it had little con-
trol over the situation or the crisis was not as bad as
people perceived. Arguing lack of control or minimal
damage to others serves to reduce attributions of
crisis responsibility (Coombs & Holladay, 2002). In
reality, organizations seldom utilize reduce offen-
siveness crisis response strategies.
2.3.3. Bolstering
Bolstering strategies seek to add positive informa-
tion to the crisis situation. Managers might remind
stakeholders of the organization’s past good works
or thank those who helped combat the crisis, such as
first responders or loyal customers. Bolstering works
by adding positive information to help offset nega-
tive information generated by a crisis.
2.3.4. Redress
Redress strategies include actions designed to pri-
oritize victim concerns. Compensation offers money
or other types of rewards to victims. Apology ac-
cepts responsibility for the crisis and asks victims for
forgiveness. The idea behind redress strategies is to
engage in positive actions toward victims in order to
offset negatives from the crisis.
3. Outcomes
Outcome variables are the second set of variables
that are important to understanding the effects of
crisis communication. Outcome variables represent
the different factors that crisis communication
strategies can influence, and reflect efforts to man-
age meaning. The five most common outcome var-
iables are reputation, emotion, purchase intention,
stock prices, and word of mouth. Reputation is easily
the most studied outcome variable in crisis commu-
nication research. As defined by Fombrun and van
Riel (2004), in the corporate sense, reputation is an
evaluation of an organization driven by the percep-
tions of stakeholders. Crises damage reputations,
and crisis communication is one resource that can be
used to repair that damage (Benoit, 1997). Because
reputation is a valued intangible asset, reputational
damage should be avoided (Fombrun & van Riel,
2004). The two dominant emotions that emerge in
the crisis communication research are anger and
anxiety. Stakeholders are angry that organizations
allowed a crisis to occur and to harm others (Coombs
& Holladay, 2005). Crises produce anxiety because
people are afraid the crisis may harm them or worry
about a recurrence of the crisis (Jin & Pang, 2010).
Anger and anxiety can alter how stakeholders inter-
act with an organization. Therefore, crises can have
direct financial costs through declines in purchase
intentions and stock prices (Jones, Jones, & Little,
2000). Anger has been shown to increase the likeli-
hood of negative word of mouth after a crisis, and
negative word of mouth can damage an organization
in many ways (Tucker & Melewar, 2005). However,
crisis communication can be used to reduce the
negative effects of a crisis on a range of outcome
variables. The challenge lies in connecting the crisis
communication strategies to the outcome variables.
The question becomes: How can crisis communica-
tion reduce the negative effects of a crisis? The
key to addressing that question is the cluster of
situational factors that shape how crises create
negative outcomes for organizations.
4. Situational factors
To protect an organization from crisis harms, we
must comprehend how a crisis inflicts harms on an
organization. Research has identified four situation-
al factors that help us understand the damaging
effects of crises: (1) crisis responsibility, (2) compe-
tence and integrity, (3) long-term and short-term
threat assessment, and (4) timing.
4.1. Crisis responsibility
Crisis responsibility represents the amount of respon-
sibility for a crisis that stakeholders attribute to the
organization (Coombs, 1995). Crisis responsibility is
derived from attribution theory. The more people
attribute a negative event to the person involved, the
more negative they are toward that person. Similarly,
the more stakeholders attribute crisis responsibility
to an organization, the more damage the crisis inflicts
upon the organization–—including reputational dam-
age, purchase intention, anger, and negative word of
mouth (Coombs & Holladay, 1996, 2002, 2005;
144 W.T. Coombs
Schwarz, 2008). Situational Crisis Communication
Theory (SCCT) has mapped critical variables that
shape attributions of crisis responsibility.
SCCT uses a two-step process to assess attribu-
tions of crisis responsibility. The first step entails
determining the crisis type. The crisis type is the
general frame that is being used to define the crisis
situation. For example, a victim crisis frame posi-
tions the organization as a victim of the crisis and
thus produces minimal attributions of crisis respon-
sibility, while a preventable crisis frame produces
strong attributions of organizational responsibility.
Examples of victim crises include workplace vio-
lence, rumors, product tampering, and outside at-
tacks. Preventable crises include management
misconduct that knowingly places stakeholders at
risk and/or violates laws or regulations. The second
step entails evaluating intensifying factors in the
situation. A history of similar past crises or a nega-
tive prior reputation will intensify attributions of
the organization’s crisis responsibility (Coombs,
1995, 2004, 2007; Coombs & Holladay, 2002). The
two-step assessment allows crisis managers to de-
termine if stakeholders are likely to view the orga-
nization as bearing little or significant responsibility
for the crisis.
4.2. Competence and integrity
Competence and integrity are two critical elements
of corporate reputation (Brown & Dacin, 1997).
Psychological research demonstrates that people
are more willing to forgive trust violations related
to competence than trust violations related to in-
tegrity; this is similar to the difference between
accidental acts (competence) and intentional acts
(integrity). Research shows that apologies are very
effective at addressing trust violations resulting
from competence. However, apologies serve to in-
tensify damage from trust violations resulting from
integrity. The damage intensifies because the apol-
ogy reinforces that the person is guilty of a moral
violation. Denial was found to prevent trust prob-
lems with integrity violations (Kim, Dirks, Cooper, &
Ferrin, 2006; Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004). A
similar pattern has been found with organizational
crises when using denial. The dilemma is that when
an organization is guilty of an integrity-based crisis
(has some responsibility for the crisis), denial is an
ineffective option. If managers deny any responsi-
bility for a crisis and are then found to bear some
responsibility for it, damage to the organization will
be intensified (Coombs & Holladay, 2014). This
means that crisis managers must use a strategy–—
or some combination thereof–—that is perceived to
accept a level of responsibility for the crisis, if
indeed the organization bears any responsibility
for the crisis.
4.3. Long-term and short-term threat
assessment
The threat appraisal model, drawing upon Contin-
gency Theory from the field of public relations, finds
that long-term threats are perceived as stronger
than short-term threats. If a crisis can be classified
as a long-term threat, it will require greater atten-
tion and a more victim-oriented, accommodative
response than would a short-term crisis (Jin, 2009;
Jin & Cameron, 2007).
4.4. Timing
Timing refers to timing of the release of information
acknowledging that a crisis exists. This line of re-
search is known as ‘stealing thunder.’ Stealing thun-
der is a concept derived from legal studies and
refers to situations in which a defense attorney will
bring up a weakness before opposing counsel has the
opportunity to do so. Being the first to address a
weakness reduces damage to the legal case
(Williams, Bourgeois, & Croyle, 1993). Stealing
thunder in crisis communication occurs when the
organization in crisis is the first entity to report the
existence of the crisis. Stealing thunder research
consistently demonstrates that a crisis inflicts sig-
nificantly less reputational and other damage to an
organization when the organization is the source of
the initial report about the crisis compared to when
another party, such as the news media, is the first to
release the information (Arpan & Pompper, 2003;
Claeys & Cauberghe, 2010). It benefits the organi-
zation to release initial information about a crisis
occurrence because reputational damage is intensi-
fied if another party is instead the first to do so.
5. Crafting evidence-based crisis
communication
Crisis communication research has been generated
in public relations, corporate communication, mar-
keting, management, and psychology. I reviewed a
range of this research when identifying the key
factors involved in crisis communication: crisis
response strategies, situational factors, and
outcomes. Using the research as a foundation, we
can construct a fairly substantial set of evidence-
based recommendations for crisis communicators.
What follows is a discussion of guidance that can be
distilled from the extant research. Again, this guid-
ance represents not best practices but rather
The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from strategic communication research 145
insights regarding which crisis response strategies
can be beneficial in a particular crisis and which can
actually make the crisis situation worse. The guid-
ance discussion is divided into three sections:
(1) recommendations for action, (2) warnings, and
(3) long-term versus short-term gain. The recom-
mendations for action section is the longest and
seeks to identify the best available advice about
how crisis managers might communicate during spe-
cific crisis situations. The warnings section discusses
the dangers inherent in utilizing a denial strategy.
Finally, the long-term versus short-term gain section
considers the consequences of flying low or being
aggressive with crisis communication.
5.1. Recommendations for action
This section identifies key situational factors and
how these factors should shape the selection of
crisis response strategies, as well as subsequent
effects of chosen crisis response strategies on crisis
outcomes. Table 1 provides a quick summary of the
crisis communication guidance.
No Crisis Responsibility Crisis Situation. In this
situation, the organization bears no responsibility
for the crisis. The crisis could be based on false
information (a rumor) or be a case of mistaken
identity (a different firm is involved). Crisis
Table 1. Overview of crisis response strategy guidance
Crisis Situation Crisis Response Strategies
No Crisis Responsibility Denial
Minimal Crisis Responsibility Instructing and Adjusting
Information
Strong Crisis Responsibility Instructing and Adjusting
Information
apology, compensation,
or both
Integrity-based Crisis Instructing and Adjusting
Information
apology, compensation, or
Competence-based Crisis Instructing and Adjusting
Information
apology
Long-term Threat Instructing and
Adjusting Information
apology, compensation,
or both
Timing Instructing and Adjusting
Information
managers should use the denial strategy and provide
evidence against the erroneous perception that the
organization was in crisis. If successful, the denial
strategy separates the organization from the crisis,
thereby protecting organizational assets from
damage.
Minimal Crisis Responsibility Crisis Situation. In
this situation, the organization does have some link
and responsibility for the crisis. The crisis will in-
volve some external attack such as product tamper-
ing, workplace violence, or terrorism. Instructing
and adjusting information are necessary to address
the needs of victims or potential victims. When
there are victims, crisis managers must emphasize
what is being done to help the victims. Public safety
and welfare must be shown as the organization’s top
priorities. Victim focus is what will help limit dam-
age to organizational assets.
Strong Crisis Responsibility Crisis Situation. In
this situation, the organization is the source
of the crisis and could have taken actions to reduce
the likelihood of the crisis. Examples include man-
agers knowingly sending an unsafe product to mar-
ket or purposely violating laws or regulations.
Instructing and adjusting information is the initial
response, as these crises produce victims. Crisis
managers must determine if they will add compen-
sation, apology, or both to their response. Given the
Outcomes
� Protect reputations and purchase intention
� Reduce anger and likelihood of negative
word of mouth
� Protect reputations and purchase intention
� Reduce anger, anxiety, likelihood of negative
word of mouth
� Protect reputations and purchase intention
� Reduce anger, anxiety, likelihood of negative
word of mouth
both
� Protect reputations and purchase intention
� Reduce anger, anxiety, likelihood of negative
word of mouth
� Protect reputations and purchase intention
� Reduce anger and likelihood of negative
word of mouth
� Protect reputations and purchase intention
� Reduce anger and likelihood of negative
word of mouth
� Protect reputations and purchase intention
� Reduce anger and likelihood of negative
word of mouth
146 W.T. Coombs
high level of crisis responsibility in this situation,
crisis managers–—if interested in maximizing the
reputation repair potential of crisis response
strategies–—must go beyond instructing and adjust-
ing to enact the most accommodative strategies
possible. Simply using instructing and adjusting in-
formation is a viable response, but less optimal than
adding an accommodative strategy. By seeking to
help the victims, crisis managers can lessen damage
suffered by the organization.
Integrity-based Crisis Situation. In this case, the
crisis situation will be similar to the attribution of
strong crisis responsibility crises. The two crisis
situations are very similar but not isomorphic. In
integrity-based crises, managers demonstrate little
regard for morality. Examples include knowingly
sending a dangerous product to market or embez-
zling. Instructing and adjusting information is the
initial response. Crisis managers then must deter-
mine if they will add compensation, apology, or both
to their response. Again, a victim focus is what will
help to reduce the amount of damage an organiza-
tion suffers from the crisis.
Competence-based Crisis Situation. In this situa-
tion, the crisis will reveal a problem arising from an
error that stems from the organization’s lack of skill.
The organization exposes a competency gap be-
tween what is required of its duties and how the
organization performs those duties. Industrial and
transportation accidents can be competence-based.
Instructing and adjusting information is the initial
response if there are victims. An apology is strongly
recommended because of its ability to rebuild trust
for competence violations. The addition of an apol-
ogy should significantly help to repair damage done
by the crisis.
Long-term Threat Crisis Situation. In this situa-
tion, the crisis has staying power and can inflict
harm on an organization for an extended period of
time. Instructing and adjusting information is the
initial response if there are victims. An apology
should be added to quicken the end of the crisis.
An apology is an effective way to end media interest
in a crisis and shorten attention span regarding the
crisis (Hearit, 2006). The combination of strategies
should provide some level of repair to organizational
damage created by the crisis.
Timing Crisis Situation. In this situation, the crisis
manager has the opportunity to be the first to
release information about the crisis. It is not always
possible for the firm to be the first source of infor-
mation: the news media or some social media source
might be the first to report the crisis, or legal
requirements might dictate that a government
agency is the entity that must report it. For exam-
ple, most product harm events in the United States
must be reported first by the federal government. As
part of the organization’s initial statement, it is still
useful to provide instructing and adjusting informa-
tion. By stealing thunder, crisis managers can sig-
nificantly reduce the damage a crisis inflicts on the
organization.
Except for No Crisis Responsibility, the seven
aforementioned crisis situations are not mutually
exclusive. Crisis managers may face crisis situations
that entail a combination of the situational factors,
such as an integrity-based crisis that produces
strong attributions of crisis responsibility and
presents the opportunity to steal thunder. Table 1
demonstrates overlap in the optimal crisis response
strategies; hence, overlaps between the crisis sit-
uations are easily accommodated. In other words,
there is a consistency to the pattern of crisis re-
sponse strategies that will help crisis managers
repair organizational damage caused by crises. That
central pattern is a base response of instructing and
adjusting information–—when there are victims–—
and then a decision as to whether or not to include
an apology, compensation, or a combination of the
two. The unique features of each crisis will help to
guide the final crisis response strategies crisis man-
agers employ.
5.2. Warnings
In addition to actions that should benefit the orga-
nization during a crisis, two warnings should be
heeded in order to avoid creating additional prob-
lems. First, avoid scapegoating, even if another
organization bears some responsibility for the crisis.
Crisis managers can mention involvement of another
firm (share blame), but should not shift all or most of
the burden to the other party. Crisis managers must
indicate that they understand the situation is theirs
to deal with. Second, denial represents a major risk.
If any evidence emerges linking an organization to
the crisis after a denial strategy is used, damage will
be intensified (Coombs & Holladay, 2014). In fact,
researchers have identified the ways in which de-
nials can trigger additional damage to an organiza-
tion as a type of ‘double crisis.’ A double crisis
occurs when the crisis response is so ineffective
or inappropriate that it appears to create a second
crisis for the organization (Frandsen & Johansen,
2010; Grebe, 2013).
5.3. Short-term versus long-term gain
A crisis can inflict damage on an organization’s
reputation and its stock price. ‘Fly low’ approaches
can help minimize initial damage to both reputa-
tions and stock prices. The fly low approach is when
The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from strategic communication research 147
crisis managers say little about the crisis (Moran &
Gregory, 2014). However, the fly low approach is
risky in that it seems to suppress the ability of both
reputations and stock prices to rebound. Aggressive
responses can intensify initial damage to reputation
(Moran & Gregory, 2014) and stock price (Raithel,
2014), but also seem to produce a quicker rebound.
An aggressive response involves immediately talking
about the crisis and may even include the use of an
apology. Crisis managers need to decide if they want
a short-term or long-term gain from their crisis
communication efforts.
6. Limitations
One criticism of crisis communication research is
that it forgets about the actual constraints manag-
ers face in crisis situations. Financial and legal
concerns can limit how crisis managers respond to
a crisis (Fitzpatrick & Rubin, 1995; Tyler, 1997). That
is why it is important to address the crisis response
strategies that crisis managers should avoid. While
constraints might prevent the selection of optimal
crisis response strategies, crisis managers should
know how to avoid making the situation worse
and which strategies provide a minimal amount of
repair potential.
7. Conclusion
Crisis communication is an applied discipline be-
cause it seeks to find solutions to real-world prob-
lems. The earliest publications in the crisis
communication body of knowledge were based on
practitioner advice; practitioners who underwent
crises wrote about their experiences and con-
structed lists of what to do and what not to do.
These lists appear in practitioner-oriented publica-
tions (Coombs, 2010). The early and foundational
crisis communication research publications re-
flected personal experience rather than systematic
knowledge (Erez & Grant, 2014). In the United
States, crisis communication emerged as a practice
in the late 1980s. However, serious research on crisis
communication did not appear until the 1990s. As is
a common pattern, the practice of crisis communi-
cation was ahead of research. The early research
was predicated on subjective analyses of cases, not
evidence produced by rigorous systematic research.
Some 30 years later, crisis communication should be
heeding the call of evidence-based management
and seeking to use systematic research to guide
the practice of crisis communication.
References
Arpan, L. M., & Pompper, D. (2003). Stormy weather: Testing
‘‘stealing thunder’’ as a crisis communication strategy to
improve communication flow between organizations and jour-
nalists. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 291—308.
Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory
of image restoration. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communi-
cation. Public Relations Review, 23(2), 177—186.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the
product: Corporate associations and consumer product
responses. The Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68—84.
Claeys, A. S., & Cauberghe, V. (2010). Crisis response and crisis
timing strategies: Two sides of the same coin. Public Relations
Review, 38(1), 83—88.
Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The develop-
ment of guidelines for the selection of the ‘‘appropriate’’
crisis response strategies. Management Communication
Quarterly, 8(4), 447—476.
Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis
communications: Insights from situational crisis communica-
tion theory. Journal of Business Communication, 41(3),
265—289.
Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during
a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis
communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3),
163—177.
Coombs, W. T. (2010). Crisis communication: A developing field.
In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (2nd ed.,
pp. 477—488). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and
attributions in a crisis: An experimental study of crisis
communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(4),
279—295.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers
protect reputational assets: Initial tests of the situational
crisis communication theory. Management Communication
Quarterly, 16(2), 165—186.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2005). Exploratory study of
stakeholder emotions: Affect and crisis. In N. M. Ashkanasy,
W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Hartel (Eds.), Research on emotion in
organizations: Vol. 1. The effect of affect in organizational
settings (pp. 271—288). New York: Elsevier.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2014, March 7). Corporate
tweets: Social or parasocial interaction? Paper presented at
the 17th Annual International Public Relations Research Con-
ference, Miami, FL.
Erez, A., & Grant, A. M. (2014). Separating data from intuition:
Bridging evidence into the management classroom. The
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 13(1),
104—119.
Fitzpatrick, K. R., & Rubin, M. S. (1995). Public relations vs. legal
strategies in organizational crisis decisions. Public Relations
Review, 21(1), 21—33.
Fombrun, C. J., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2004). Fame and fortune:
How successful companies build winning reputations.
New York: Prentice Hall.
Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2010). Crisis communication,
complexity, and the cartoon affair: A case study. In W. T.
Coombs & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), The handbook of crisis
communication (pp. 425—448). Boston: Blackwell.
Grebe, S. K. (2013). Things can get worse: How mismanagement
of a crisis response strategy can cause a secondary or
double crisis: The example of the AWB corporate scandal.
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0010
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0010
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0010
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0015
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0015
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0020
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0020
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0020
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0030
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0030
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0030
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0030
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0035
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0035
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0035
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0035
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0040
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0040
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0040
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0040
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0045
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0045
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0045
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0050
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0050
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0050
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0050
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0055
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0055
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0055
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0055
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0060
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0060
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0060
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0060
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0060
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0070
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0070
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0070
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0070
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0075
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0075
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0075
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0080
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0080
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0080
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0085
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0085
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0085
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0085
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0090
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0090
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0090
148 W.T. Coombs
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(1),
70—86.
Hearit, K. M. (2006). Crisis management by apology: Corporate
response to allegations of wrongdoing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jin, Y. (2009). The effects of public’s cognitive appraisal of
emotions in crises on crisis coping and strategy assessment.
Public Relations Review, 35(3), 310—313.
Jin, Y., & Cameron, G. T. (2007). The effects of threat type and
duration on public relations practitioner’s cognitive, affec-
tive, and conative responses in crisis situations. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 19(3), 255—281.
Jin, Y., & Pang, A. (2010). Future directions of crisis communica-
tion research: Emotions in crisis–—The next frontier. In W. T.
Coombs & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), The handbook of crisis
communication (pp. 677—682). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Jones, G. H., Jones, B. H., & Little, P. (2000). Reputation as
reservoir: Buffering against loss in times of economic crisis.
Corporate Reputation Review, 3(1), 21—29.
Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When
more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs.
external attributions for the repair of trust after a compe-
tence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Be-
havior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 49—65.
Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004).
Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology
versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based
trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 104—118.
Moran, R., & Gregory, J. R. (2014). Post crisis: Engage–—or fly low?
Brunswick Review, 8, 52—54.
Raithel, S. (2014, March 4). Negative celebrity endorser publicity
and stock returns: How critical are immediate firm reactions?
Paper presented at the 3rd Annual Meeting of the International
Crisis and Risk Communication Conference, Orlando, FL.
Schwarz, A. (2008). Covariation-based causal attributions during
organizational crises: Suggestions for extending situational
crisis communication theory. International Journal of Strate-
gic Communication, 2(1), 31—53.
Sturges, D. L. (1994). Communicating through crisis: A strategy
for organizational survival. Management Communication
Quarterly, 7(3), 297—316.
Tucker, L., & Melewar, T. C. (2005). Corporate reputation and
crisis management: The threat and manageability of anti-
corporatism. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(4), 377—387.
Tyler, L. (1997). Liability means never being able to say you’re
sorry: Corporate guilt, legal constraints, and defensiveness
in corporate communication. Management Communication
Quarterly, 11(1), 51—73.
Williams, K. D., Bourgeois, M. J., & Croyle, R. T. (1993). The
effects of stealing thunder in criminal and civil trials. Law and
Human Behavior. 17(6), 597—609.
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0090
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0090
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0095
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0095
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0100
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0100
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0100
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0105
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0105
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0105
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0105
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0110
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0110
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0110
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0110
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0110
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0115
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0115
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0115
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0120
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0120
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0120
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0120
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0120
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0125
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0125
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0125
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0130
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0130
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0130
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0140
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0140
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0140
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0140
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0145
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0145
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0145
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0150
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0150
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0150
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0155
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0155
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0155
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0155
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0160
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0160
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(14)00150-5/sbref0160
The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from strategic communication research
1 Crisis communication
2 Crisis response strategies
2.1 Instructing information
2.2 Adjusting information
2.3 Reputation repair
2.3.1 Denial
2.3.2 Reducing offensiveness
2.3.3 Bolstering
2.3.4 Redress
3 Outcomes
4 Situational factors
4.1 Crisis responsibility
4.2 Competence and integrity
4.3 Long-term and short-term threat assessment
4.4 Timing
5 Crafting evidence-based crisis communication
5.1 Recommendations for action
5.2 Warnings
5.3 Short-term versus long-term gain
6 Limitations
7 Conclusion
References
